Pope's climate push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments

[_Abyssinia]

BOSTON (Reuters) - Pope Francis heartened environmentalists around the world in June when he urged immediate action to save the planet from the effects of climate change, declaring that the use of “highly polluting fossil fuels needs to be progressively replaced without delay.”

But some of the largest American Catholic organizations have millions of dollars invested in energy companies, from hydraulic fracturing firms to oil sands producers, according to their own disclosures, through many portfolios intended to fund church operations and pay clergy salaries.

This discrepancy between the church’s leadership and its financial activities in the United States has prompted at least one significant review of investments. The Archdiocese of Chicago, America’s third largest by Catholic population, told Reuters it will reexamine its more than $100 million worth of fossil fuel investments.

mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QH0E620150812

 

[ProVobis]

The Chicago investment should be interesting to follow, especially when the archdiocese is so heavily in debt and money isn’t exactly pouring in.

 

[zz912]

Implicit in this article is that energy production and consumption is evil or sinful.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Implicit in this article is that energy production and consumption is evil or sinful.

This quote from the article pretty much sums it up:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ guidelines on ethical investing warn Catholics and Catholic institutions against investing in companies related to abortion, contraception, pornography, tobacco, and war, but do not suggest avoiding energy stocks.

 

[Murmurs]

I suppose you can’t expect fossil fuel-extracting companies to work out other ways of producing energy supplies without investment though… Better to use what influence the Church has through its investments, than wash its hands and pretend the problem isn’t there because they don’t have anything to do with it!

Churches still need heating and lighting and most clergy still need a car (or public transport, and most of the energy for that ultimately comes from fossil fuels), to get around (never mind a salary). Redirecting portfolios doesn’t stop the church being an equal contributor to the problem in the ways every human being is.

 

[phil19034]

This quote from the article pretty much sums it up:

You quoted

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ guidelines on ethical investing warn Catholics and Catholic institutions against investing in companies related to abortion, contraception, pornography, tobacco, and war, but do not suggest avoiding energy stocks.

There is a huge difference between energy companies and companies related to abortion, contraception, pornography, tobacco & war…

The primary mission of those companies is sin. Abortion, contraception, porn, selling dangerous tobacco products, selling war machines to evil dictators, etc.

The primary mission of an energy company is to create energy to better mankind.

If an energy company is focused on it’s mission and doesn’t give into greed, then they will evolve as technology evolves. Furthermore, energy companies (even if they are greedy and irresponsible) do not publicly endorse damaging the environment. Damage to the environment is not their goal, it’s currently an unintended consequence.

But the abortion contraception, porn, tobacco, & war industries will always be focused on sin, and will always promote it. The sinful nature in these industries are not an unintended consequence, they are totally intentional, especially with the first three.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

This quote from the article pretty much sums it up:

This is tricky, especially when dealing with mutual funds or indexed funds. In the SP500 fund, for example, I’m sure there are a few companies inside their portfolios which, in this world of mergers and acquisitions, end up with some connection with Church-disapproved products. One has to determine just how far removed they are.

 

[zz912]

You quoted

There is a huge difference between energy companies and companies related to abortion, contraception, pornography, tobacco &** war…**

The primary mission of those companies is sin. Abortion, contraception, porn, selling dangerous tobacco products,** selling war machines to evil dictators**, etc.

The primary mission of an energy company is to create energy to better mankind.

If an energy company is focused on it’s mission and doesn’t give into greed, then they will evolve as technology evolves. Furthermore, energy companies (even if they are greedy and irresponsible) do not publicly endorse damaging the environment. Damage to the environment is not their goal, it’s currently an unintended consequence.

But the abortion contraception, porn, tobacco, & war industries will always be focused on sin, and will always promote it. The sinful nature in these industries are not an unintended consequence, they are totally intentional, especially with the first three.

God Bless

So the companies that sell arms to the United States, they are promoting evil and sin? What about those that sell arms and weapons to the Vatican?

 

[KSU]

Pope Francis is an intelligent, humble, personable, maverick who is close to God; an extraordinary teacher of what our strictly spiritual relationship to God should be like. Media lies not withstanding, doctrine could not be in safer hands.

He draws praise from Socialists, secularists and other groups who normally wouldn’t be caught dead praising anything related to Catholicism, which they hate.

But, he does so by opining about economic systems from the perspective of someone intimately familiar only with vile crony capitalism; and naively about “climate change” only from the perspective of the equally vile political Left; and about homosexuality, war, and the poor, only from the perspective of a father grieving for his injured and suffering children.

In his attempt to be all things to almost all men, I believe he is at best just offsetting his gains by losses. True, by expressing philosophical, scientific and even theological (e.g., “Who am I to judge”) half truths mixed with solid doctrine, he is gaining the favorable attention of old enemies. But, he is being too clever by half because he may be irretrievably alienating some of the orthodox religious right.

That group is the wellspring of the Church; it supplies orthodox clergy and Religious, money, and political protection for religious freedom. The Church could not exist as we know it without the religious right. Yet that is the group which the Pope gives the unmistakable impression of attacking. Just ask the Left.

So, how are orthodox, faithful Catholics to react regarding the self-contradictory statements of our good Pope Francis? He says we should do away with fossil fuels–the savior of the poor–to help the poor. He undoubtedly knows that fossil fuels are what brought most of the world out of incredible poverty and a constant war-like survival of the strongest and master and slave mode of living. He knows that modern medicine, etc., without fossil fuels, would not exist, yet he insists on doing away with them sooner than later. Because his Academies of Liberal Pontifical advisers tell him to, he treats an alleged scientific consensus of an undefined, alleged man-made “climate change” as true science when it is no such thing. He conflates alleged man-made “climate change” with the Catholic doctrine of respecting the environment.

Inexplicably, he wants us to financially strengthen the brutal, murdering Communist masters in Cuba for the sake of the poor Cuban people.

He believes killing 129,000 Japanese (even though living near targets of high military value) to effect a surrender and save lives, was horribly wrong, yet disregards the estimated million American military casualties and the suffering of the five million American loved ones of those casualties that would have occurred had we invaded the Japanese homeland. And please don’t anyone bore me with the contrived, “But the Japanese military rulers were ready to surrender” bit. Nor do I recall that that was the Holy Father’s contention. Moreover, I may be wrong but I think he said it, at least in part, to show that he is not being one-sided against Muslims when he calls out the Turkish genocide.

So, besides prayer, how are we to react? I can’t get Benedict’s reminder out of my head: " not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature." We just can’t put reason aside. As both Benedict and John Paul reminded us, reason and faith are not to be placed in opposition to each other. Good Pope Francis owes us clarity.

 

[phil19034]

So the companies that sell arms to the United States, they are promoting evil and sin? What about those that sell arms and weapons to the Vatican?

I was not talking about responsible arms manufactures who in it for defense and to protect people, nations, etc.

I’m was speaking about the unethical and irresponsible ones who sell arms to terrorists, evil dictators, black markets, sell to both sides, etc.

 

[phil19034]

Pope Francis is an intelligent, humble, personable, maverick who is close to God; an extraordinary teacher of what our strictly spiritual relationship to God should be like. Media lies not withstanding, doctrine could not be in safer hands.

He draws praise from Socialists, secularists and other groups who normally wouldn’t be caught dead praising anything related to Catholicism, which they hate.

But, he does so by opining about economic systems from the perspective of someone intimately familiar only with vile crony capitalism; and naively about “climate change” only from the perspective of the equally vile political Left; and about homosexuality, war, and the poor, only from the perspective of a father grieving for his injured and suffering children.

In his attempt to be all things to almost all men, I believe he is at best just offsetting his gains by losses. True, by expressing philosophical, scientific and even theological (e.g., “Who am I to judge”) half truths mixed with solid doctrine, he is gaining the favorable attention of old enemies. But, he is being too clever by half because he may be irretrievably alienating some of the orthodox religious right.

That group is the wellspring of the Church; it supplies orthodox clergy and Religious, money, and political protection for religious freedom. The Church could not exist as we know it without the religious right. Yet that is the group which the Pope gives the unmistakable impression of attacking. Just ask the Left.

So, how are orthodox, faithful Catholics to react regarding the self-contradictory statements of our good Pope Francis? He says we should do away with fossil fuels–the savior of the poor–to help the poor. He undoubtedly knows that fossil fuels are what brought most of the world out of incredible poverty and a constant war-like survival of the strongest and master and slave mode of living. He knows that modern medicine, etc., without fossil fuels, would not exist, yet he insists on doing away with them sooner than later. Because his Academies of Liberal Pontifical advisers tell him to, he treats an alleged scientific consensus of an undefined, alleged man-made “climate change” as true science when it is no such thing. He conflates alleged man-made “climate change” with the Catholic doctrine of respecting the environment.

Inexplicably, he wants us to financially strengthen the brutal, murdering Communist masters in Cuba for the sake of the poor Cuban people.

He believes killing 129,000 Japanese (even though living near targets of high military value) to effect a surrender and save lives, was horribly wrong, yet disregards the estimated million American military casualties and the suffering of the five million American loved ones of those casualties that would have occurred had we invaded the Japanese homeland. And please don’t anyone bore me with the contrived, “But the Japanese military rulers were ready to surrender” bit. Nor do I recall that that was the Holy Father’s contention. Moreover, I may be wrong but I think he said it, at least in part, to show that he is not being one-sided against Muslims when he calls out the Turkish genocide.

So, besides prayer, how are we to react? I can’t get Benedict’s reminder out of my head: " not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature." We just can’t put reason aside. As both Benedict and John Paul reminded us, reason and faith are not to be placed in opposition to each other. Good Pope Francis owes us clarity.

Good, faithful Catholic need to do one thing and one thing only … Listen for the message the Holy Father is giving, not be so hung up on the words.

The Pope wants humanity to be better. Can we be better stewards of the environment than we are? Yes. Can we love our neighbors more? Yes. Can we do more for the poor? Yes. Can we be less materialistic? Yes. Can we less wasteful? Yes. Can we live the Gospel more? Yes.

America has the potential to great things for God in the world, and the potential do “great” thing for the devil.

Pope Francis forces us to look at ourselves in the mirror. A person who has the fear of God in him sees places to improve when looking himself in the eye. A foolish man pats himself on the back.

I pray I’m making sense.

God Bless

 

[KSU]

Good, faithful Catholic need to do one thing and one thing only … Listen for the message the Holy Father is giving, not be so hung up on the words.

My friend, I don’t know what it means to hear a message without the words, especially when the words contradict the assumed message. That is unreasonable. A Pope during peacetime should not be afraid to speak boldly and clearly. Francis is not in the predicament of Pius XII.

The Pope wants humanity to be better. Can we be better stewards of the environment than we are? Yes. Can we love our neighbors more? Yes. Can we do more for the poor? Yes. Can we be less materialistic? Yes. Can we less wasteful? Yes. Can we live the Gospel more? Yes.

**See how easy it is to say that clearly? What has it got to do with fossil fuel? **

America has the potential to great things for God in the world…

Certainly not by avoiding the use of fossil fuels.

Pope Francis forces us to look at ourselves in the mirror. A person who has the fear of God in him sees places to improve when looking himself in the eye. A foolish man pats himself on the back. I pray I’m making sense.

I know what you mean, and it’s true, but it has nothing to do with my post.

God Bless

 

[lynnvinc]

…[re the Pope] naively about “climate change” only from the perspective of the equally vile political Left…

Pardon me, but that’s insulting to me.

AGW was NOT a political issue at all for nearly 200 years, but a scientific issue – which I was fortunate to learn about in my extra science readings in high school in the early 60s. The so-called “left” was very late in getting onto this issue. As late as 5 years ago someone called me from the national Democrats, and when I told them global warming was my issue they didn’t have the slightest idea about what I was speaking.

Just because now belatedly the left has taken on AGW as a low-priority issue and the right still has not taken it on yet (except for a few) does not make it a left issue, it just makes it a non-issue with the right. Once the right, some of whom claim to be pro-life, get on to this issue, then it will be a political “non-issue” and we’ll all be working to shift to greater energy/resource efficiency/conservation and renewable energy and away from fossil fuels, which have tremendous harms beyond those of AGW to well-being and life at the local to global levels and at all stages from extraction to shipping to processing to combustion to waste disposal.

However, I don’t really expect the blue left or red right to be much on this issue, despite the left’s recent green flag waving, because politicians from both parties are heavily funded by fossil fuels…which some societies call “excrement of the devil.”

The Church can slowly divest from fossil fuels, as many other entities are doing, as it finds good investments in not so harmful ventures. This is really a non-issue. Oil is on its way out anyway, and coal is becoming way to costly and risky an investment. If the Church divests later then people will accuse it of only doing so because there’s no more money to make on it and not to save lives and to seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness.

If worst comes to worst, we can become a poor church and make people in the back pews cough up more to support their local churches. That’s what a lot of the small Protestant churches do.

 

[KSU]

Pardon me, but that’s insulting to me.

Sorry, lynn, you’re just going to have to go through life being insulted. How many years have I and countless others been through this phony science issue with you? We have gotten nowhere with you by presenting mountains of hard facts. You simply ignore them.

AGW was NOT a political issue at all for nearly 200 years, but a scientific issue – which I was fortunate to learn about in my extra science readings in high school in the early 60s. The so-called “left” was very late in getting onto this issue.

**That’s true; why do you think I emboldened the word “political” in my post? I was not talking about the simply deluded, good-hearted liberals, which you represent. Once the Socialist anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-scientific POLITICAL Left latched onto the issue as a huge tax ripoff scheme, the issue of what is now called climate change became a farce. Power and money for Leftist politicians (and for those scientists who can be bought to prostitute the objectivity of their professions) has become the name of the game, which is made to order for unscrupulous scientists, politicians and, of course, the UN. **

Just because now belatedly the left has taken on AGW as a low-priority issue…

Low-priority? Please stop, lynn. The leader of the Left, Barack Hussein Obama, and his groupies, never tire of their attempts to extort money from us (and receive money from enviros) by screaming from the rooftops that climate change IS NOT low-priority; that it is, rather, the number one health issue and an immediate risk to our national security. The national security reference is code for we must drastically slash our military budget and shift the money to fight climate change, i.e., shift the money to the Democrat Party.

The Church can slowly divest from fossil fuels… If worst comes to worst, we can become a poor church and make people in the back pews cough up more to support their local churches. That’s what a lot of the small Protestant churches do.

I’ll not ask you if you cough up more to the Party of abortion, homosexualism, contraception, suicide, Socialism, international policy disaster and pornography now that the Party has seen the value of the Algore scam to “fight” climate change. If you have coughed up more, maybe it’s Catholics like you who should do the divesting.

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m thinking maybe scientists are correct when they say climate change and AGW deniers should simply be ignored. Laudato Si is now part of Catholic social teaching. It concerns morality and not politics.

If one disagrees with Catholic teaching, then just say so.

 

[Murmurs]

Sorry, lynn, you’re just going to have to go through life being insulted. How many years have I and countless others been through this phony science issue with you? We have gotten nowhere with you by presenting mountains of hard facts. You simply ignore them.

That’s true; why do you think I emboldened the word “political” in my post? I was not talking about the simply deluded, good-hearted liberals, which you represent. Once the Socialist anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-scientific POLITICAL Left latched onto the issue as a huge tax ripoff scheme, the issue of what is now called climate change became a farce. Power and money for Leftist politicians (and for those scientists who can be bought to prostitute the objectivity of their professions) has become the name of the game, which is made to order for unscrupulous scientists, politicians and, of course, the UN.

Low-priority? Please stop, lynn. The leader of the Left, Barack Hussein Obama, and his groupies, never tire of their attempts to extort money from us (and receive money from enviros) by screaming from the rooftops that climate change IS NOT low-priority; that it is, rather, the number one health issue and an immediate risk to our national security. The national security reference is code for we must drastically slash our military budget and shift the money to fight climate change, i.e., shift the money to the Democrat Party.

I’ll not ask you if you cough up more to the Party of abortion, homosexualism, contraception, suicide, Socialism, international policy disaster and pornography now that the Party has seen the value of the Algore scam to “fight” climate change. If you have coughed up more, maybe it’s Catholics like you who should do the divesting.

Don’t be so utterly…utter. “We” ignore people presenting “hard” facts only because they’re not. They’re delightedly circumstantial and this only became a political issue when it started to be championed by the left. And regardless of whether or not AGW IS as bad as the vast bulk of evidence suggests, that doesn’t matter because it’s morally incumbent upon us not to pollute the world as much as we can anyway. People like you give the (erroneous, I’m sure?) impression of thinking that “stewardship” means “keep screwing everything up as fast as possible even though we now know better”. Well I’m sorry. Go and do something more constructive. I have had an enough of imbeciles.

 

[KSU]

I’m thinking maybe scientists are correct when they say climate change and AGW deniers should simply be ignored. Laudato Si is now part of Catholic social teaching. It concerns morality and not politics.

If one disagrees with Catholic teaching, then just say so.

You understand neither Catholic social teaching nor Laudato Si which says just the opposite of your statement.

 

[Thomas_White]

You understand neither Catholic social teaching nor Laudato Si which says just the opposite of your statement.

Well, what I think you might do is write a letter to Pope Francis and explain this to him.

 

[KSU]

Don’t be so utterly…utter. “We” ignore people presenting “hard” facts only because they’re not. They’re delightedly circumstantial and this only became a political issue when it started to be championed by the left. And regardless of whether or not AGW IS as bad as the vast bulk of evidence suggests, that doesn’t matter because it’s morally incumbent upon us not to pollute the world as much as we can anyway. People like you give the (erroneous, I’m sure?) impression of thinking that “stewardship” means “keep screwing everything up as fast as possible even though we now know better”. Well I’m sorry. Go and do something more constructive. I have had an enough of imbeciles.

Now that’s what passes for a well-reasoned, scientifically-supported, civilly-worded response from the Left. Your argument, however, is with Catholic social teaching and with Pope Francis:

Laudato Si 188. “There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.”

My adult life has been devoted to preserving, rather successfully, God’s life-giving jewel box (the environment) from pollution winked at by a few in industry, by corrupt politicians, by governments and by the UN-- the pinnacle of corrupt, self-serving government. I have dealt with it all, from the vile to the simply deluded, and have been attacked for my efforts by far more powerful and knowledgeable people than you, Murmurs, my friend.

So, I don’t mind your amateur slurs because I share your love of God’s natural gifts and sympathize with your passion to protect them. Just do your homework and learn the truth.

 

[Thomas_White]

You understand neither Catholic social teaching nor Laudato Si which says just the opposite of your statement.

“It is my hope that this encyclical letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency which we now face.” Ladato Si (15)

Of course the papal encyclical Ladato Si is a moral teaching. The very section you quote below (Ladato Si, 188) states that the Church does not presume to replace politics. I don’t know how it could mean its opposite.

To understand the encyclical, it is necessary to first understand Chapter Three, Section II, and in particular its first three paragraphs (106-108). These concern an epistemological paradigm where both humans and nature are viewed as objects. This is a fundamental moral teaching.

The science of climate change, AGW, and science itself are beside the point of this moral teaching. Climate change and AGW are whatever they are and a question for science. But it is necessary to see why this is irrelevant to the moral teaching of the encyclical.