Vatican urges Catholics to drop investments in fossil fuels, arms

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That was indeed a sordid affair. It’s why when people question reports of where money is going because the source is Lifesite etc, I tend to err on the side of it being true. Given history.
 
At this point the Vatican is losing the ability to speak on any of these issues.
Something about glass houses and stones…
 
Thanks Vatican, but I have an investment manager and I would no more be taking investment advice from you than I would be taking spiritual advice from him.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Thanks Vatican, but I have an investment manager and I would no more be taking investment advice from you than I would be taking spiritual advice from him.
Click to expand...
At the same time though, and this isn’t just in response to you but others who have replied as well, she is our Mother. Shouldn’t we take this very seriously when she admonishes us to avoid certain things?
 
She is our spiritual Mother. Not our secular Mother.

She should not be giving financial advice. Unless it’s “sell all you have and give to the poor.”
 
Last edited:
“Catholic social teaching” is all over the map.

I do not find it particularly Catholic to demonize reasonable military spending, and I never did. I’m sure there are many members of Opus Dei, many military chaplains, and some people on the path to canonization who would agree with me. Our freedom to worship comes with a price tag. If not for the military of this country and several others, the Vatican would not even be here to issue investment advice.

This is my final word on the matter.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe that the charism of infallibility protects ‘the Vatican’ when speaking on subjects not related to faith and morals.

The current climate (no pun intended) in the Vatican in AD 2020 regarding fossil fuels might be perfectly scientific, though I don’t believe science has had the last word, but not in a ‘moral’ or faith sense.

Certainly we need to be good stewards. Certainly there are ways in which fossil fuels can be used more effectively and with less negative impact and more positive, but one also has to consider that before one makes a ‘global change’ one has a well-planned and mapped strategy to replace what one is ‘removing’.

In the world, are most countries ready at a minute’s notice to replace fossil fuels with nuclear, wind, and water power and other renewable resources?

What happens to the economy of a country if suddenly its factories are closed down, unable to generate goods, and thus unable to sell? How then does that country manage to keep its own people fed?

I see far too much emphasis lately in this world for change NOW. Even if it is positive change, the idea seems to be that simply ‘removing’ something, whether it is the police forces, or ‘fossil fuels’ will somehow stop everything ‘evil’. But they never seem to have an idea of how to handle the fact that ‘life goes on’ and what will need to be in place INSTEAD of ‘the police’ or ‘fossil fuels’, or to make any attempt for a smooth transition. Just a ‘yank’ of the one and then not even an idea for anything to replace. Classic anarchy.
 
StudentMI said:
Shouldn’t we take this very seriously when she admonishes us to avoid certain things?
Click to expand...
Is the Vatican offering alternative stocks and investing options? Teaching Priests to look over my portfolio and perform a Moral Audit?

No, they’re not thinking this through at all. This is just unrealistic and foolish.
 
stpurl said:
I do not believe that the charism of infallibility protects ‘the Vatican’ when speaking on subjects not related to faith and morals.
Click to expand...
The social teaching of the Church has been proclaimed as part of the moral teaching of the Church.
 
But the charism of infallibility also requires speaking either ex cathedra or with the unity of all the bishops. With respect, I don’t that that this ‘urging’ would be considered as infallible teaching.

I’m not even sure it is under social teaching either. Plus, from the article, it says in this ‘manual’ for clergy, that people “COULD’ do x y or z, not that they should or must.
 
LOL, I’d be the wrong sex for either, and as I said further, “I don’t believe science has had the last word’, by which I meant that a lot of ‘science’ has to do with theories, which may or may not hold up.’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top