Pope Warns Against New Colonialism: Corporations, Loan Agencies, and Austerity Measures That Hurt Poor

[Thomas_White]

The accusation that Reno’s criticism of the encyclical is prompted by his conservatism is, I think, a straw man. In fact, Reno is quite charitable and measured in his critique. He just comes to a different conclusion than you do.

Reno is both “a theological and political conservative”. He says he converted from the Episcopal Church to the Roman Catholic Church in 2004 for this reason: “The Catholic Church needs no theories.” --Wikipedia

That Reno say he believes the Church “needs no theories” is hardly persuasive in view of the article in question, “The Weakness of Laudato Si”, not when his conclusion is that the problem is “the men trained in the coherent old theological systems of the pre-Vatican II era have passed from the scene.” This is to say it isn’t that the Church needs no theories (an odd thing for a theologian to say) but rather that it needs the old traditional ones. Maybe so, but more likely it already does. It would seem Reno apparently doesn’t even realize the meaning of what he is calling for in his article (it is the old theological systems). If this isn’t a conservative position, I don’t know what would be. What of the continuing revelation given to each generation, as Pope Benedict XVI described it?

If Reno’s criticism is understood, it is reminiscent of the remark of James Watt, Reagan’s Interior secretary known for his shock and awe stance toward the environment, when he once made reference to “liberals and Americans”. It is question of one’s preconceived perspective of things, a matter of politics and ideology.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

Mr. White,

No one is arguing that Mr. Reno isn’t conservative. I’m certainly not. You write: “If this isn’t a conservative position, I don’t know what would be.” What’s your point? There is nothing wrong with being conservative – is there?

Also, I’m not sure why you bring in a Wiki bio regarding his conversion from Anglicanism as a proof text for a misconstrual of the meaning of the word “theories.” Are you putting words in Reno’s mouth when you write: “…his conclusion is that the problem is 'the men trained in the coherent old theological systems of the pre-Vatican II era have passed from the scene.”’? Does he mention “theories” in this context? Hardly. You do. He doesn’t.

And then there is this: the “men trained in the coherent old theological systems of the pre-Vatican II era” HAVE “passed from the scene.” That’s pretty much true. They are either dead or near the end of their lives. Does it bother you that Reno refers to those “old theological systems” as being coherent? His suggestion, by contrast, is that the new system is incoherent or that it borders on incoherency – and that is entirely in keeping with his critique – and I think he may be on to something. I think Mr. Reno entirely realizes the meaning of what he is calling for in his article.

 

[lynnvinc]

It’s almost laughable how much is allowed regarding attacks on the clergy or other Catholics from the left. Accusing Fr. Sirico of being bought off, accusing EWTN of the same. All because they may disagree with your personal opinion and theology on ecological matters.

The devil works in places where he can have greater impact. What I said goes – just because a lot of what EWTN has is good and fine, does not excuse their occasional pro-death anti-environmentalism. However, to be fair and more Jesus-like, one might say, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do” (even tho I’ve been writing them for years telling they are dead wrong on environmental issues).

As for Fr. Sirico, it seems more likely he may know and he does indeed receive funding from Koch and Exxon. That’s no lie.

Unfortunately there are some priests who engage in all sorts of terrible sins, and just bec there are, does not mean I’m attacking the priesthood or the Church. In fact it is my Christian duty to alert people to the lies and falsehoods they are spreading…which also go against what they popes have been saying for over 25 years re AGW and other environmental harms.

This is NOT a left issue, neither red nor blue, but green and has to do with life on planet earth and how we are harming and killing it. In fact Nixon was our best environmental prez to date, bar none.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I wonder, which would most of us choose, the Church or capitalism. There are areas where the two appear to be in conflict. Which is first in our lives?

This is more or less a false choice question. The catechism specifically calls out central planning, socialism and communism as bad practices.

Free-market capitalism is the best system. The numbers, despite the repeated denials of some progressives, confirm it as does natural law.

Libertine commentator Jason Lewis perhaps said it best “free markets are just what people used to call the ‘animal spirits’”.

The marketplace, even buried under oppressive, unnecessary, regulation, is in tune with natural law.

The problem is crony capitalism and when business and government mix inappropriately.

It’s also a problem when too many people are dependent on the state, because governments become corrupt, and people end up choosing worldly nonsense over God and are put in difficult if not impossible decision-making scenarios regarding fullness of their Faith.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The devil works in places where he can have greater impact. What I said goes – just because a lot of what EWTN has is good and fine, does not excuse their occasional pro-death anti-environmentalism. However, to be fair and more Jesus-like, one might say, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do” (even tho I’ve been writing them for years telling they are dead wrong on environmental issues).

As for Fr. Sirico, it seems more likely he may know and he does indeed receive funding from Koch and Exxon. That’s no lie.

Unfortunately there are some priests who engage in all sorts of terrible sins, and just bec there are, does not mean I’m attacking the priesthood or the Church. In fact it is my Christian duty to alert people to the lies and falsehoods they are spreading…which also go against what they popes have been saying for over 25 years re AGW and other environmental harms.

This is NOT a left issue, neither red nor blue, but green and has to do with life on planet earth and how we are harming and killing it. In fact Nixon was our best environmental prez to date, bar none.

How is EWTN anti-environment?

Being anti-environmentalist may not be a bad thing at all depending on what that means…

 

[Thomas_White]

Mr. White,

No one is arguing that Mr. Reno isn’t conservative. I’m certainly not. You write: “If this isn’t a conservative position, I don’t know what would be.” What’s your point? There is nothing wrong with being conservative – is there?

Also, I’m not sure why you bring in a Wiki bio regarding his conversion from Anglicanism as a proof text for a misconstrual of the meaning of the word “theories.” Are you putting words in Reno’s mouth when you write: “…his conclusion is that the problem is 'the men trained in the coherent old theological systems of the pre-Vatican II era have passed from the scene.”’? Does he mention “theories” in this context? Hardly. You do. He doesn’t.

And then there is this: the “men trained in the coherent old theological systems of the pre-Vatican II era” HAVE “passed from the scene.” That’s pretty much true. They are either dead or near the end of their lives. Does it bother you that Reno refers to those “old theological systems” as being coherent? His suggestion, by contrast, is that the new system is incoherent or that it borders on incoherency – and that is entirely in keeping with his critique – and I think he may be on to something. I think Mr. Reno entirely realizes the meaning of what he is calling for in his article.

Theology is theory. And if theology were not alive and developing, it would cease to exist. But I cannot agree that I am having it this way or that or putting words in Reno’s mouth when I am using direct quotes. I included what I did from Wikipedia simply because it is factual information, that’s all. Of course Reno’s preference for the “old theology” is conservative. What I questioned was not whether conservatism is right or wrong. To the contrary, I questioned whether there even is such a thing as the “old theology”. This requires explanation. I think the “old theology”, if that means the traditional teachings of the Church, very much remains intact and that Reno is wrong to conclude otherwise. But I also believe it is important that theology continue to develop.

Again, I do not find Laudato Si at all incoherent, and I have gone at some length to explain why I think so. Reno simply pulls conclusions out of thin air. There is nothing in the moral teaching of the encyclical that is contrary to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tomdstone]

Free-market capitalism is the best system. The numbers, despite the repeated denials of some progressives, confirm it as does natural law. .

I don’t think so. I think a regulated free market system is much better, otherwise, without regulations, you have exploitation of the worker class.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t think so. I think a regulated free market system is much better, otherwise, without regulations, you have exploitation of the worker class.

I think that’s what I said, or at least what I meant.

Not too many people out there are against any and all regulation.

 

[Thomas_White]

And then there is this: the “men trained in the coherent old theological systems of the pre-Vatican II era” HAVE “passed from the scene.” That’s pretty much true. They are either dead or near the end of their lives. Does it bother you that Reno refers to those “old theological systems” as being coherent? His suggestion, by contrast, is that the new system is incoherent or that it borders on incoherency – and that is entirely in keeping with his critique – and I think he may be on to something. I think Mr. Reno entirely realizes the meaning of what he is calling for in his article.

It seems to me that what is incoherent here is Reno’s reference to “old theological systems from the pre-Vatican II era”. What is the new system of Catholic theology that is supposedly incoherent or borders on incoherency?

I would have thought the Catholic Church has but one theological system. Whatever Reno might mean or refer to by “the coherent old theological systems” is far from clear.

Why I included what I did from the Wikipedia information is self explanatory. It provided the context for what Reno said about the Catholic Church having “no theory” and had nothing whatever to do with the fact he converted to Catholicism or to the Episcopol Church itself.

It provided the context for the words I directly quoted that were relevant: “The Catholic Church needs no theories.”

 

[Thomas_White]

It seems to me that what is incoherent here is Reno’s reference to “old theological systems from the pre-Vatican II era”. What is the new system of Catholic theology that is supposedly incoherent or borders on incoherency?

I would have thought the Catholic Church has but one theological system. Whatever Reno might mean or refer to by “the coherent old theological systems” is far from clear.

Why I included what I did from the Wikipedia information is self explanatory. It provided the context for what Reno said about the Catholic Church having “needing no theories” and had nothing whatever to do with the fact he converted to Catholicism or of the Episcopol Church itself. That the Catholic Church might need no theories requires explanation. Many theologians have described theology as theory.

It provided the context for the words I directly quoted that were relevant: “The Catholic Church needs no theories.”

 

[zz912]

The devil works in places where he can have greater impact. What I said goes – just because a lot of what EWTN has is good and fine, does not excuse their occasional pro-death anti-environmentalism. However, to be fair and more Jesus-like, one might say, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do” (even tho I’ve been writing them for years telling they are dead wrong on environmental issues).

As for Fr. Sirico, it seems more likely he may know and he does indeed receive funding from Koch and Exxon. That’s no lie.

Unfortunately there are some priests who engage in all sorts of terrible sins, and just bec there are, does not mean I’m attacking the priesthood or the Church. In fact it is my Christian duty to alert people to the lies and falsehoods they are spreading…which also go against what they popes have been saying for over 25 years re AGW and other environmental harms.

This is NOT a left issue, neither red nor blue, but green and has to do with life on planet earth and how we are harming and killing it. In fact Nixon was our best environmental prez to date, bar none.

Opposing the myth of AGW is not sinful, and no matter how many times you try to claim it, it is not true. Your calumny and slander against EWTN and those priests (by calling them anti-life) is uncharitable and deserves an apology.

 

[lynnvinc]

Opposing the myth of AGW is not sinful, and no matter how many times you try to claim it, it is not true. Your calumny and slander against EWTN and those priests (by calling them anti-life) is uncharitable and deserves an apology.

In their positions to influence many people – not as priests, but as people with large followings – their sins or shortcomings (I’m no moral theologian to call the shots here re sin) are much more grave than a bunch of bloggers on AGW opposing the three popes and what they have been saying for 25 years re AGW.

We all can take what CAF AGW-denialist bloggers (whether they be priests, laypersons, or working for fossil fuel interests) say with a grain of salt as if from people who don’t know the science and might not really care for what the popes have to say. Y’all really don’t have much influence on others. So, I wouldn’t extremely worry about going to that very hot place over this. Those with great public following have to be more cautious in their words and advice. I don’t really know what the spiritual repercussions will be for them, so I’m making no claims.

I personally am striving to reduce my own harms to others and would not want to lie and cause others to fall into harming and killing others.

However, it’s a free country, you can do what you want, and I really don’t know what the spiritual repercussions might be. Maybe y’all will get off scott-free. There’s always last confession, etc.

 

[zz912]

In their positions to influence many people – not as priests, but as people with large followings – their sins or shortcomings (I’m no moral theologian to call the shots here re sin) are much more grave than a bunch of bloggers on AGW opposing the three popes and what they have been saying for 25 years re AGW.

We all can take what CAF AGW-denialist bloggers (whether they be priests, laypersons, or working for fossil fuel interests) say with a grain of salt as if from people who don’t know the science and might not really care for what the popes have to say. Y’all really don’t have much influence on others. So, I wouldn’t extremely worry about going to that very hot place over this. Those with great public following have to be more cautious in their words and advice. I don’t really know what the spiritual repercussions will be for them, so I’m making no claims.

I personally am striving to reduce my own harms to others and would not want to lie and cause others to fall into harming and killing others.

However, it’s a free country, you can do what you want, and I really don’t know what the spiritual repercussions might be. Maybe y’all will get off scott-free. There’s always last confession, etc.

Doubting or resisting the myth of AGW is not sinful, no matter how many times you state or imply it. One does not go to hell because they don’t believe in AGW.

Your calumny and slander against EWTN and those priests deserves an apology.

 

[Thomas_White]

Fr. Sirico was ordained a Paulist priest in 1989. He is a political and social conservative who calls his economic and moral vision a “preferential option for liberty”. His institute promotes free market economics, contrasting it theologically to what he views as the moral bankruptcy of socialism as an ideology.

What became known as the Conference of Latin American Bishops was held in Medellin, Columbia, in 1968. It developed for Latin America what is known as the “preferential option for the poor”. The initial goal was to form base communities where poor and marginalized people could be taught to read by using the Bible. The concept was to enable this group to rise from abject poverty; the movement would evolve into liberation theology and become associated with Marxism. Pope Francis, not yet ordained a priest in 1968, would later, as the Jesuit provincial of Argentina, firmly reject the Marxistist component of liberation theology while retaining the preferential “option for the poor” in accordance with the Gospels and the teachings of Christ. This too was a rejection of Socialist political ideology.

The rejection of Marxism in liberation theology by Pope Francis had serious adverse consequences for him in the Jesuit community, but suffice it to say his later appointment as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, the largest diocese in Argentina, was approved by John Paul II during the period this pope was intent on suppressing the Marxist component of liberation theology in Latin America. The Archbishop of Buenos Aires continued to support and implement the preferential option for the poor. Pope Benedict XVI would in time lend his full support, sensing that Latin America could potentially become the base Church. Meanwhile, the future Pope Francis was made a Cardinal. The rest, as they say, is history.

The preferential option for the poor is a central teaching of Ladaro Si. One does not suppose Fr. Sirico and his acolytes are pleased as the pope now advances this teaching for the Universal Church. But neither history nor Catholic social teaching is not on their side.

 

[lynnvinc]

Doubting or resisting the myth of AGW is not sinful, no matter how many times you state or imply it. One does not go to hell because they don’t believe in AGW.

Your calumny and slander against EWTN and those priests deserves an apology.

Pope Francis has made it quite clear that AGW denial and indifference are wrong in Laudato Si, tho he didn’t specify the level of wrong-doing or sin.

From Laudato Si:

1. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”. He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins”. For “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God”.
2. … Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.
3. Climate change is a global problem with serious implications, environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods; it represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. …. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.
4. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms…
5. … We must maintain with clarity an awareness that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States Bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”. We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.
6. … There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.
7. … With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.

 

[styrgwillidar]

1. … There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.

"Hence the observation of serial wind energy “investor” Warren Buffett, who says: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

…
Officials admitted that so-called “green” energy schemes will require a staggering £9 billion a year in subsidies – paid for by customers – by 2020. This is £1.5 billion more than the maximum limit the coalition had originally planned.
… and that money (to the tune of 100 million) goes to folks like- .

independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/dale-vince-interview-the-100m-hippy-with-wind-in-his-turbines-and-quorn-in-his-burgers-9588062.html

Tesla- “The green subsidy program’s most successful investment to date is an electric car manufacturer that has yet to profit solely from the sales of its product. Instead, it is a company built on loan guarantees, sustained on subsidies and profitable only through a system of credits designed to benefit electric car manufacturers at the expense of their competitors. Take away all of the recent hype surrounding Tesla’s recent loan repayment, and you are left with a company built to cash in on the privilege and favors from politicians.”

usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/06/03/teslas-success-is-the-result-of-political-favoritism

“Someone Tell the Pope: Environmentalism Crushes the Poor”…powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/someone-tell-the-pope-environmentalism-crushes-the-poor.php

 

[Thomas_White]

EDIT: I surely meant for the last sentence of my above comment to read this way:

“But neither history nor Catholic social teaching is on their side.”

 

[zz912]

Pope Francis has made it quite clear that AGW denial and indifference are wrong in Laudato Si, tho he didn’t specify the level of wrong-doing or sin.

From Laudato Si:

1. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”. He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins”. For “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God”.
2. … Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.
3. Climate change is a global problem with serious implications, environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods; it represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. …. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.
4. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms…
5. … We must maintain with clarity an awareness that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States Bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”. We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.
6. … There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.
7. … With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.

Doubting or resisting the myth of AGW is not sinful, no matter how many times you state or imply it. One does not go to hell because they don’t believe in AGW.

Your calumny and slander against EWTN and those priests deserves an apology.

 

[SWolf]

As for Fr. Sirico, it seems more likely he may know and he does indeed receive funding from Koch and Exxon. That’s no lie.

This is NOT a left issue, neither red nor blue, but green and has to do with life on planet earth and how we are harming and killing it. In fact Nixon was our best environmental prez to date, bar none.

I personally know Fr. Sirico, and he’s not one to be bought off. He has almost single-handedly saved a parish and school(going back to the classical method of education) in a quite poor community. You can respectfully agree or disagree, but arguing that he is bought off without evidence is slander.

If this is the sort of discourse you use in your classroom, it’s exhibit A of everything that’s wrong in modern education.

 

[lynnvinc]

I personally know Fr. Sirico, and he’s not one to be bought off. He has almost single-handedly saved a parish and school(going back to the classical method of education) in a quite poor community. You can respectfully agree or disagree, but arguing that he is bought off without evidence is slander.

If this is the sort of discourse you use in your classroom, it’s exhibit A of everything that’s wrong in modern education.

Well, that’s really good to hear. (Of course, most people, even sinners, do some good to some people.)

I wonder if he may have come around to accepting what JPII, BXVI, Pope Francis, and the U.S. Catholic Bishops have been saying about AGW over the past 25 years.

It would warm my heart to no end if he has now recanted his support of the “Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship” - the part that says “3. While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated. … Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive man-made global warming, …”

If he does not, then he is at odds with statements by JPII, BXVI, Pope Francis, and the U.S. Catholic Bishops, and is in the business of persuading people not to mitigate AGW…which is a lot more serious a harm and wrong from him, with a large following, than from bloggers here.

I stand by my criticism based on what I know and have heard from him and his Acton Institute and their Exxon and Koch funding. However, I would admit that they could have received such funding for their AGW denialist opinions after the fact, rather than are being paid for them, bec I know there are some who are just ideologically opposed to accepting serious env harms, such as AGW, and are not nec doing it for the money.

I sincerely hope Fr. Sirico may have changed and is now telling people he made a mistake, that AGW is real, and that we have to mitigate it…or at the least that out of prudence, even if we still have doubts, we should mitigate it.

That would be enough to make me recant my criticism. I’m always very happy when people who were wrong on something serious turn around to do and say right.

If you know Fr. Sirico, then please pass along my criticism of his AGW-denialism. Let’s see what he says and does. If he truly is a sincere and humble priest he will give it some thought and perhaps change his position.