Pope Francis drives a wedge between Catholic Church, GOP

[Darryl1958]

…
That said, the principle of being a faithful steward of the environment for future generations might well alienate conservatives and put Republicans at odds with Catholic moral teaching.

I don’t think so. I can recall it was Republican George H W Bush and conservative Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney that signed into law the ‘Acid Rain Treaty’, which is one of the most significant environmental treaties to date in North America.
Likewise, Republican Teddy Roosevelt established the National Parks System in America, and the advocates of more nuclear power, which Obama stands firmly against, tend to be conservatives.

What Republicans and conservatives are against is not the environment, but environentalists using the environent as a pretext to strike a blow at industry. They are not against environmental reviews, but are against environmental reviews being used as red tape, and presidents who veto projects regardless of what the environmental review determine is safe.

What Republicans are against is prices of energy being artificially elevated, not least of which is that it is immoral in that the poor are the ones that suffer the most from such a policy.

They are against American industry being driven to third world countries without environmental regulations as a result of the politics of the leftist enviromentalists strangling American business on the pretext that they are protecting the environment.
Globally, such policies are making the environment much, much worse.

Republicans are for the applying the rational guiding hand of the free market to determine the course of green energy, rather than the fiasco model of Solyndra being funded by the unthinking bureacracy of ever-increasing government.

Republicans are not against the environment. What they are against is environmental policies and the useless models that are continually being proposed by the left.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think so.

I know you don’t, and many Republicans do not think they are poor stewards of the environment. However, I note that many of the environmental issues that come up, the “rational (?) guiding free hand of the market” results in reckless conduct, meaning, policies that assume the best possible outcome instead of the worst possible outcome or most likely outcome. It is like we are shooting our guns up in the air on New Year’s Eve confident that the bullets are unlikely to kill someone. It is unfortunate that both sides cherry-pick data to drive political ideologies.

 

[Darryl1958]

I know you don’t, and many Republicans do not think they are poor stewards of the environment. However, I note that many of the environmental issues that come up, the “rational (?) guiding free hand of the market” results in reckless conduct, meaning, policies that assume the best possible outcome instead of the worst possible outcome or most likely outcome. It is like we are shooting our guns up in the air on New Year’s Eve confident that the bullets are unlikely to kill someone. It is unfortunate that both sides cherry-pick data to drive political ideologies.

I will take the bird’s eye view and not take a stand of whether the free market of the hands of a select few experts assigned by governments are the best ways to come up with the best solutions and the best trade-offs.

I will say though that when it comes to choosing the correct moral path, our own conscience and our own discernment is what must guide us in that decision.

It would be incorrect therefore to assume however that the path that Republicans and conservatives take would put us at odds with Catholic moral teaching. The assumption that Republicans are just greedy and in bed with big business is no more true about Republicans than it is for Democrats.

But if that really is the case that being a conservative is being at odds with Catholic teaching, then it would go far in verifying that the teaching from this pope is based in leftist thinking, rather than in the wisdom of the ages.

Obama says trust me; Republicans say trust the market. Catholic teaching is to pray for guidance, inform your conscience, and then trust that the Holy Spirit will guide you on the correct path.
Like all moral choices it is a struggle, not just against yourself, but against finding the better path.
Deciding in bad faith is what puts us in conflict with Catholic teaching and liberals are no better than conservatives in that regard.

 

[zz912]

The truth is not derogatory, but the comment in question was not the truth. Also, your assertion that the DNC promotes intrinsic evil is untrue. The same assessment has been made of republicans, that they are just greedy, arrogant people with the me-me complex. I don’t agree with that either. These are all just hurtful words slung at each other in anger and in fear. We need to get beyond that.

To answer your question, when I vote I look at the candidates and ask:

Do you support life/dignity by supporting a ban on capital punishment? Do you support life/dignity by supporting the EPA’s climate control measures? Do you support life/dignity by supporting govt programs that help the poor and the displaced with food, housing, job training, education and healthcare? Do you support life/dignity by opposing US troop engagements unless they are deployed to provide humanitarian aid or to fend off direct military invasion of our 50 states and our territories? Do you support life/dignity by supporting a ban on torture? Do you support life/dignity by supporting universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers? Do you support life/dignity by supporting strong sex education in our middle and high schools that includes a section on abstinence? Do you support life/dignity by supporting a ban on abortions when the life of the mother is not in question? If abortions are outlawed, do you support life/dignity by supporting govt programs that pay the pregnancy, birth and post-natal costs of poor women denied abortion services? Do you support life/dignity by supporting financial programs that provide for poor children who would have otherwise been aborted (birth thru college)? Do you support life/dignity by supporting a ban on euthanasia? Do you support life/dignity by supporting an immigration policy that puts the life and dignity of immigrants above all else? Do you support economic policies that support life/dignity of individuals/families by supporting constructs of self sufficiency like liveable wages and equal opportunities?

I review candidates’ platforms, look at their voting records and do other research. Then I ask myself, who is the candidate most likely to accomplish or support this list of pro-life things. I’m not a one issue voter. I vote for who is more likely to walk the talk of Christ overall.

An increase in the minimum wage is not on the same level, or even in the same universe as abortion. But you have attempted to make it so. Nice try, but no.

This is just excuses #4 and #8.

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.

 

[zz912]

My thinking is you cannot consider the anti-environmentalists, including climate change denialists, among the GOP candidates and reps to be pro-life in any sense of the word. If they were, then abortion would have been the 1st thing on their plate. And then maybe they would have beefed up Obamacare and social services to help poor children expectant mothers more. Maybe they would have taxed the rich more to help the poor more.

But what was the first thing on their plate? Pass Keystone XL, contaminate, harm, and kill.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

More excuses so liberals can continue to vote for pro-abortion politicians and pretend to be in harmony with the Catholic faith. Specifically #1 and #5

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.

 

[zz912]

So, now we have Pope Francis. Any pope who is compassionate and oriented toward social justice must be opposed to the behavior of the GOP. It makes perfect sense.

Complete fantasy of liberals who wish to keep voting for pro-abortion politicians. “Republicans are evil, so obviously it’s okay to vote to kill babies”.

It’s not a matter of “liberals” (actually social moderates) expecting the Church to change its moral opinions. Nobody expects that to happen. And few people, even few Catholics, seem to care much about that. If you need confirmation of that observation, consider gay marriage, and Brazil, Belgium, France and Spain. If those countries who are overwhelmingly Catholic had an electorate which considered Church opinions on the topic to be legitimate, then how do you suppose they came to legalize gay partnerships and/or marriage?

Oh, so if enough Catholics ignore Church teaching, that means it’s okay to ignore Church teaching.

Funny, but Jesus had a different opinion about it. He reminded us that the path to hell was wide, while the path to heaven was narrow.

 

[Ender]

I note that many of the environmental issues that come up, the “rational (?) guiding free hand of the market” results in reckless conduct, meaning, policies that assume the best possible outcome instead of the worst possible outcome or most likely outcome.

This is simple fantasy, and vague fantasy at that. Instead of claiming that “many” issues result in recklessness how about naming one? Surely if there are “many” you can identify at least one that has been carried on without government control or oversight.

Ender

 

[zz912]

This is simple fantasy, and vague fantasy at that. Instead of claiming that “many” issues result in recklessness how about naming one? Surely if there are “many” you can identify at least one that has been carried on without government control or oversight.

Ender

How funny that those countres which have the heaviest govt control, also have the worst records for environmental abuse.

 

[Ender]

How funny that those countries which have the heaviest govt control, also have the worst records for environmental abuse.

Environmental controls are expensive. In this country the battle is never whether there should be no controls at all but where to draw the line and say enough. Some pollution is not harmful; that’s why the EPA has limits on what levels of pollutants can be discharged. The debate between the parties is almost always about where to draw the limits; it is never about whether limits should be drawn.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

This is simple fantasy, and vague fantasy at that. Instead of claiming that “many” issues result in recklessness how about naming one? Surely if there are “many” you can identify at least one that has been carried on without government control or oversight.

Ender

I normally do not like to respond to my ideas and opinions being called “fantasy.” Insulting language such as this tells me any answer will be met with denials and excuses. However, so this can be illustrated, I will give a few cases where the market drove something harmful to the environment - the hunting of the Buffalo to the verge of extinction by western settlers, the dumping and use of methyl mercury, the diverting of water from the Aral Sea. As to CO2 emmissions, without going into the whole global warming debate, I think the least that can be said is that the jury is out as to the effect of ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Maybe it is more of a problem, or less, but if the answer is not known ignoring possible negative outcomes meets my understanding of the word “reckless”.

 

[lynnvinc]

What do your views on climate change or even the environment have to do with being pro life?..

Maybe it’s because I’m a woman and I understand that you can kill people by poisoning them Men usually think of guns, but as a criminologist I understand that poison has been a woman’s weapon for 1000s of years. Pollution is a type of poisoning.

The point is there are many ways to harm and kill people, including thru environmental harms.

Maybe no one in your circle has cancer, or their cancer is quite easily explained by lifestyle and/or genetics. However, there are lots of people that have cancer and other diseases due to environmental causes (they may not even realize it).

If a person is not open to understanding such causes there is nothing much I can say to convince them.

Starvation can also kill people, and since GW is projected to greatly decrease food productivity, that’s just another way to kill people…only we are doing the harmful actions now today, but the people won’t die from them until sometime in the future…from, say, about 30 years from now up to 100,000 years from now, since a portion of CO2 can stay in the atmosphere that long. It could be we’re killing our own children or grandchildren.

Like I said, unless one is open to and seeking knowledge on the harms they are committing, they won’t have any understanding re them.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Maybe it’s because I’m a woman and I understand that you can kill people by poisoning them Men usually think of guns, but as a criminologist I understand that poison has been a woman’s weapon for 1000s of years. Pollution is a type of poisoning.

The point is there are many ways to harm and kill people, including thru environmental harms.

Maybe no one in your circle has cancer, or their cancer is quite easily explained by lifestyle and/or genetics. However, there are lots of people that have cancer and other diseases due to environmental causes (they may not even realize it).

If a person is not open to understanding such causes there is nothing much I can say to convince them.

Starvation can also kill people, and since GW is projected to greatly decrease food productivity, that’s just another way to kill people…only we are doing the harmful actions now today, but the people won’t die from them until sometime in the future…from, say, about 30 years from now up to 100,000 years from now, since a portion of CO2 can stay in the atmosphere that long. It could be we’re killing our own children or grandchildren.

Like I said, unless one is open to and seeking knowledge on the harms they are committing, they won’t have any understanding re them.

Well said.

And yeah, even as a man I understand what you say. But perhaps being a biochemist helps me here.

 

[lynnvinc]

I would offer a word of caution here. The Holy Father will not address issues on special interest websites. It is too easy to get pictures of him and snippets taken from any context. There are plenty of reasons to think the Holy Father is his own man and will alienate many on the left and right, but this one is suspect until he comes with a definitive statement.

That said, the principle of being a faithful steward of the environment for future generations might well alienate conservatives and put Republicans at odds with Catholic moral teaching.

You are probably right. He most likely will not speak of particular environmental issues much…mainly because there are 100s of them, all crying for mitigation. It would be indeed difficult to choose. Tho I’m thinking like JPII and BXVI he will most likely mention climate change.

RE conservatives, it seems to me there are several types of conservatives, so he may only be alienating the hard-hearted, economic conservatives who couldn’t care less about future generations. (I was actually raised to be that type of conservative, but changed early on in the late 60s.)

Those who are personal and social conservatives – into anti-abortion and pro-life issues, etc – he probably will not alienate, but even draw them into a sense of personal responsibility for a much wider range of harms. And as long as they understand we can do things about these, like climate change, within our daily lives and without much cost to ourselves, even saving us money, I think he will win them over and not create a wedge for them.

There is still the difficulty in selecting candidates, since often a particular candidate is good on one or several issues of importance to the Church, but then bad on some other issues. I’m thinking if it isn’t disturbing us when we vote (whichever way we do vote), then we’ve missed the Catholic boat. Good Catholics perhaps just have to learn to live with being disturbed that way and offer it up.

 

[Ender]

He most likely will not speak of particular environmental issues much…mainly because there are 100s of them, all crying for mitigation.

If he doesn’t speak about them it is because they involve prudential solutions about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree and it is not his nor the church’s responsibility to resolve them. That is a lay responsibility.

Those who are personal and social conservatives – into anti-abortion and pro-life issues, etc – he probably will not alienate…

He will not alienate any conservative if he repeats or reinforces any church doctrine, or identifies areas where people are suffering and calls for such problems to be addressed. The push back will come if he supports specific solutions or takes a position on any issue that is undecided and implies that his is the moral choice. Should that happen there will - justifiably - be objections.

There is still the difficulty in selecting candidates, since often a particular candidate is good on one or several issues of importance to the Church, but then bad on some other issues.

The problem with this assertion is that there are actually few issues where the church has a specific position. She does not, for example, have a position (meaning support of a specific solution) on health care, immigration, the minimum wage, the budget…or global warming. She has taken a position on a mere handful of issues, specifically abortion, euthanasia, torture, same sex unions, human cloning, and fetal stem cell research. That’s it. Whatever your position on other issues it is incorrect to suggest yours are in keeping with church teaching while your opponents are not. That simply isn’t true.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I will give a few cases where the market drove something harmful to the environment - the hunting of the Buffalo to the verge of extinction by western settlers, the dumping and use of methyl mercury, the diverting of water from the Aral Sea.

Your assertion was “many of the environmental issues that come up, the “rational (?) guiding free hand of the market” results in reckless conduct.” That’s kind of a present tense sort of thing so I’m thinking citing a 150 year old incident isn’t that relevant, and neither is citing something that happened in another country. I don’t recognize the reference to methyl mercury, but let’s be clear about what is being discussed. The disagreements between the parties over environmental issues are not about doing something and doing nothing at all but about what constitutes doing enough. In this country at this time there are no issues left solely to the “guiding free hand of the market.” That is a fiction, a bogeyman.

As to CO2 emissions, without going into the whole global warming debate, I think the least that can be said is that the jury is out as to the effect of ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Maybe it is more of a problem, or less, but if the answer is not known ignoring possible negative outcomes meets my understanding of the word “reckless”.

If the sky is falling it is foolish not to take action. If the sky is not falling then those actions themselves are foolish. The debate is about the likelihood that the sky is falling.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If a person is not open to understanding such causes there is nothing much I can say to convince them.

Yes, I’m sure we all feel the same way.

Starvation can also kill people, and since GW is projected to greatly decrease food productivity, that’s just another way to kill people…only we are doing the harmful actions now today, but the people won’t die from them until sometime in the future…

Actually, what we are doing today is having a harmful effect today. The politically correct drive for alternative fuels has led us to use corn to create gasohol. From an energy production standpoint this is idiocy since it takes more energy to produce than it yields, but from a food production standpoint this has been truly damaging. It has led to an increase in food prices (especially among livestock) and a subsequent drop in dietary (name removed by moderator)ut, especially among the poor. Corn farming is also hard on the environment as it requires more insecticides, herbicides, and nitrogen fertilizer than any other crop.

If you want people to support you you have to make a solid case that actions that are harmful today are actually going to pay off in the future. So far that case has not been made.

Ender

 

[zz912]

The point is there are many ways to harm and kill people, including thru environmental harms.

How many people are killed through environmental harms? At what average age are they killed? How does this compare to the number of abortions in this country?

Starvation can also kill people, and since GW is projected to greatly decrease food productivity, that’s just another way to kill people.

Wrong. Warmer weather leads to increased food production.

 

[zz912]

I normally do not like to respond to my ideas and opinions being called “fantasy.” Insulting language such as this tells me any answer will be met with denials and excuses. However, so this can be illustrated, I will give a few cases where the market drove something harmful to the environment - the hunting of the Buffalo to the verge of extinction by western settlers, the dumping and use of methyl mercury, the diverting of water from the Aral Sea. As to CO2 emmissions, without going into the whole global warming debate, I think the least that can be said is that the jury is out as to the effect of ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Maybe it is more of a problem, or less, but if the answer is not known ignoring possible negative outcomes meets my understanding of the word “reckless”.

1. The federally owned buffalo on federal lands? Those buffalo? Because private farmers and owners wouldn’t have allowed such a decimation of their herds. It was govt control that allowed that.
2. The diversion of water from the Aral Sea was done by the Soviet Union. That is NOT capitalism or the market.

Nice try though.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How many people are killed through environmental harms? At what average age are they killed? How does this compare to the number of abortions in this country?

Is your point that ignoring environmental concerns will save babies from abortions? If so, state that point clearly so it can be refuted.

Wrong. Warmer weather leads to increased food production.

Maybe, and maybe not. There are many factors that could negatively impact food production, such as a loss of the honeybee population, an increase in crop pests, or ocean acidification. It is just your guess that climate change will lead to more food production.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. The federally owned buffalo on federal lands? Those buffalo? Because private farmers and owners wouldn’t have allowed such a decimation of their herds. It was govt control that allowed that.

It was not government control that directed the reckless killing of buffalo. It was the economic incentive and market pressures. The fact that these buffalo were not privately owned is irrelevant. There were a common good, just like the air and the water that we all share. History shows that when people have an opportunity to benefit personally from a common good, then most often do, even if the results are detrimental to the use of that good for everyone else.