Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Laudato Si’: Now What Does a Catholic Do?

 

shutterstock_195361532For Catholics who advocate for free markets, Pope Francis has just made life extremely complicated. The Holy Father’s encyclical, Laudato Si’ — which I have only begun to read — contains statements that clearly indicate that the Pope has fallen in with the progressives. Although the encyclical still prohibits birth control, abortion, and euthanasia, Francis seems tone deaf to the constant demands of the left, particularly the environmental left, that the Church abandon her teachings and encourage the use of these prohibited techniques. The Pope also seems to have largely adopted the platform of the American Democratic Party. As a Republican, my stomach is queasy.

So what to do? As a Catholic, I must submit my personal convictions to the authority of the Magisterium– which means to the Pope insofar as he speaks within Church tradition on theological matters. That gives me some weasel room on Francis’s economic views. But not much room. A Catholic’s first duty is obedience, or as my daughter wrote in her new article for Catholic Exchange:

…our lives are not our own. They belong to God and that means a total emptying of self. It is within this framework that we will examine our call to love and submit in obedience to the hierarchical Church. In learning this obedience, we will mature and grow in our faith. Since Christ left us the Church, it is He who calls us to loving submission to the Church.

To be sure, I need not fully endorse Francis’s’ economics. But I must still carefully study what the encyclical says, and look deeply at the factual and scientific themes therein. Most crucially, I must prayerfully consider the totality of the encyclical, especially in light of Church teaching on Human Ecology. George Weigel writes at National Review:

It is probably inevitable that Laudato Si’ will get labeled “the global-warming encyclical” and that the label will stick. This will please some and displease others, and they will have at each other — which is no bad thing if it helps clarify that there is no simple path to meeting the twin goals of environmental protection and the empowerment (through economic development) of the poor. But the label will be misleading, I think, not because there isn’t a lot about climate change in the encyclical, but because that’s, to my mind, the least important part of Francis-the-pastor’s call to a more integral, indeed more humanistic, ecology. Reading Laudato Si’ as if it were a climate-change encyclical, period, is somewhat akin to reading Moby Dick as if it were a treatise on the 19th-century New England whaling industry. The ships and the harpoons are an important part of the story, to be sure; but if they become the whole story, you miss what Melville’s sprawling novel is really about. Ditto with Laudato Si’: If you read it as “the global-warming encyclical,” you will miss the heart and soul of what this sprawling encyclical is about — which is us.

Which is to say that the encyclical is a moral teaching, not a work of science. Francis writes:

“…we must safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology.”

Sadly, Laudato Si’ will surely become captive to political ideology. That will pit economic conservatives against progressives, not just on the question of global warming, but also free markets versus government solutions. We’re going to hear a lot about where Francis stands. We’re going to hear a lot of interpretation too. Few people will actually read the encyclical, opting instead to cherry pick those portions that seem to support their views. Which reminds me of my high school debate days, when debaters would skim articles to find the juiciest bits to quote, only to be hammered by opponents who’d actual read the thing from beginning to end. However, in our charged political arena, many of us will miss the cherry picking because we have never actually checked the full text.

So what should Catholics do? To begin with, they ought to go to the trouble of reading all 192 pages, and then work to understand what Francis is really getting at. They might also consider researching the history of Catholic social teaching. And if that is too time consuming, there will be many theologians writing on the encyclical who should be consulted—theologians on all sides of the debate.

That, too, is a moral obligation.

Image Credit: giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com

There are 104 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Merina Smith Inactive

    The Pope is a spiritual leader but also a man. I’m not Catholic, but if I were, I don’t think I’d feel too bad about not taking too seriously what the Pope has to say about things like global warming. That’s not really a spiritual issue. He obviously has his opinions and prejudices in political matters like anyone else. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t speak to him on spiritual matters.

    • #1
    • June 18, 2015, at 1:22 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Emerson Member

    Merina, that strikes me as a very Mormon approach to the problem, but I think we’d be pretty hard pressed to reasonably justify if the 1st presidency sent out some kind of letter to be read in sacrament meeting endorsing AGW. My sympathies go to our Catholic brothers and sisters.

    -E

    • #2
    • June 18, 2015, at 1:33 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Spicy Food Hiccups Inactive

    As you’ve said, we as Catholics have a responsibility to prayerfully and respectfully consider what he’s written in its entirety.

    It is, of course, frustrating that the content (at least what I’ve been able to read so far) is so leftist, but Pope Francis’s political leanings are not the same as theological teachings. (He’s certainly not the first bishop in recent memory to hold leftist views.) History bears out the claim that economic freedom does more to elevate the situation of the poor than any centralized government can. I don’t plan on abandoning that position because of this encyclical, and I think the Pope even alluded to the Church’s inability to make a definitive pronouncement to that effect.

    • #3
    • June 18, 2015, at 1:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Spicy Food Hiccups Inactive

    Also, if anyone’s interested in some other persepctives within Catholic social teaching, a reading of Rerum Novarum may be of some help. It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but from what I recall it is clearly against Socialism, and teaches that private property is bound up in the dignity of the individual.

    A priest at my parish also recommended me this book a couple of years ago: Defending the Free Market

    (I must confess I haven’t read it yet…but it sounds like something that would be of use in this case.)

    • #4
    • June 18, 2015, at 1:40 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. Merina Smith Inactive

    CandE, I’m afraid I’d have exactly the attitude I stated to Mike if such a letter were to go out. Rachel has an interesting post about this on the main page just now, and I read a good article about it by Ryan Anderson over on RCP. It sounds like there is a larger theme of cultural rot in modernity that I would agree with. I’m a big-picture person. I can agree with the larger picture without necessarily accepting all the details in cases like this.

    • #5
    • June 18, 2015, at 1:41 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. James Of England Moderator
    James Of EnglandJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Spicy Food Hiccups:Also, if anyone’s interested in some other persepctives within Catholic social teaching, a reading of Rerum Novarum may be of some help. It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but from what I recall it is clearly against Socialism, and teaches that private property is bound up in the dignity of the individual.

    A priest at my parish also recommended me this book a couple of years ago: Defending the Free Market

    (I must confess I haven’t read it yet…but it sounds like something that would be of use in this case.)

    I think it’s sometimes a little overstated in its dogmatic certainties about the market; I don’t think that healthcare would be representing a decreasing share of our income if we removed government controls, for instance (as opposed to government funding of the Medicare/ Medicaid sort).

    Still, yes, in general it’s a good book, readable and often persuasive.

    • #6
    • June 18, 2015, at 2:40 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. Scott Wilmot Member

    What to do? Take away what is good and true, and challenge those things that are problematic. Dr. Kevin Roberts, President of Wyoming Catholic College shows us how:

    The left will run with the theme of Francis as their soul mate on climate change and we must challenge their public policies that are an affront to human flourishing.

    “Think about the great mission of Acton which is to marry morality with the free market – that is something that has a long history in Church history and all Christians should understand that it is precisely the free market that lifts people out of poverty, it is not the free market that is the problem.”

    • #7
    • June 18, 2015, at 2:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron MillerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Most of what people are objecting to is what they read between the lines, rather than the text itself.

    • #8
    • June 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    I’m no expert, but wasn’t Catholic “Liberation Theology” — which was, in many respects, thinly disguised Marxism — largely a Latin American phenomenon? If I’m correct about this, there should be little surprise that the first Latin American Pope leans more to the Left politically and economically than his predecessors.

    Unfortunately, the Latin American experience has largely been a struggle between authoritarian pseudo-fascists and Left-wing Communists, with little that an American would recognize as free market capitalism with the rule of law. My impression is that Chile has done the best job. The Pope is from Argentina, which has a lamentable history.

    So, the Pope’s position is not surprising, but is troubling. It makes me happy not to be a Catholic.

    One would think that an objective view would give capitalism credit for having lifted billions of people out of poverty, especially since the fall of Communism.

    • #9
    • June 18, 2015, at 3:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. James Of England Moderator
    James Of EnglandJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Arizona Patriot: One would think that an objective view would give capitalism credit for having lifted billions of people out of poverty, especially since the fall of Communism.

    Francis has explicitly stated that no one has been lifted out of poverty (not in this encyclical). He’s obviously wrong about this, but if you assume that he is right, his normative views seem sensible. Much of the time, the problem is with his facts (and his hubris) rather than with his reception of those facts.

    Arizona Patriot: I’m no expert, but wasn’t Catholic “Liberation Theology” — which was, in many respects, thinly disguised Marxism — largely a Latin American phenomenon? If I’m correct about this, there should be little surprise that the first Latin American Pope leans more to the Left politically and economically than his predecessors.

    Francis has condemned Liberation Theology, although he has been kinder to Liberation Theologians than any of his predecessors. He’s not one of them, even if he is influenced by them.

    • #10
    • June 18, 2015, at 3:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    James:

    Thanks. Of course, the Pope is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. From the World Bank website:

    In all, 2.2 billion people lived on less than US $2 a day in 2011, the average poverty line in developing countries and another common measurement of deep deprivation. That is only a slight decline from 2.59 billion in 1981.

    Of course, there’s the small matter of population growth between 1981 and 2011 — from about 4.5 billion to about 7.0 billion, or 55%. An objective writer would have written the World Bank’s text like this:

    In all, 31% of the world’s population lived on less than $2 a day in 2011, the average poverty line in developing countries and another common measurement of deep deprivation. That is an extraordinary decline from 57% of the world’s population in 1981.

    In short, capitalism has cut the world’s poverty rate by close to 50% in just 30 years — and apparently the Pope has no idea that this has occurred, and claims that it is not true. This is a shocking ignorance of the facts.

    I’m not a Catholic, so this raises no faith problems for me. It is a big political problem when the leader of the largest religious body in the world strays outside his area of expertise, and then bases his conclusions on incorrect premises about the actual state of the world economy.

    I miss John Paul II.

    • #11
    • June 18, 2015, at 4:13 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. Scott Wilmot Member

    Here are two videos that might be of interest.

    Catholic commentary from Kevin Roberts, President of Wyoming Catholic College:

    Catholic commentary from the team at Ignatius Press (the publishers for the Holy See in the USA) at Catholic World Report:

    • #12
    • June 18, 2015, at 4:24 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. James Of England Moderator
    James Of EnglandJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Arizona Patriot: James: Thanks. Of course, the Pope is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. From the World Bank website

    To those who are reading all of the Francis threads: This is why I made a big deal out of my distaste for his economics in the first one. I think it’s only fair to the genuine defenders that I be clear that my defenses are different to theirs and more limited.

    You’re newer to the site, AP, but, yes, I have agreed with you at very, very great length and in voluminous threads with considerable rancor.

    In defense of free speech, though, Francis isn’t right when he makes this stuff up, but the language of entitlement strays dangerously close to legal terminology. He’s wrong, but he’s not criminally so. I’d say that since he’s not governed by the rules of any debating society, he was entitled to make his own claims about facts, no matter how wrong they are, since I’m sure he believes what he says.

    • #13
    • June 18, 2015, at 4:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. Carey J. Inactive

    What does a Catholic do? Become Orthodox. The Orthodox Church figured out that Popes were not infallible centuries before Martin Luther was born. Thus we have been spared the cognitive dissonance that comes from hearing an “infallible” authority spout nonsense.

    • #14
    • June 18, 2015, at 7:17 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Limestone Cowboy Coolidge
    Limestone CowboyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mike Rapkoch: To be sure, I need not fully endorse Francis’s’ economics. But I must still carefully study what the encyclical says, and look deeply at the factual and scientific themes therein.

    Mike, I’ve spent some time today on the science underpinning Laudato Si’s moral prescriptions. From even a cursory glance at the reported “factual” basis there are a considerable number of suppositions either unsupported by evidence, or contradicted by empirical observation. Consider just a single item 23 . (I could cite more, and may make it the topic of a complete post since Laudato Si is a target rich environment as unsupported factual assertions go.)

    From Item 23: “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” (No, no warming for nearly 20 years despite the increase in atmospheric CO2, which suggest that CO2 is not the prime driver of climate. And the long term warming trend began at the end of the Little Ice Age, well before human activity could have affected the atmosphere.) 

    “In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events.” (No evidence for increased extreme weather events despite the increase in atmospheric CO2) . This is well documented by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
    I’ve given “Laudato Si” a couple of reads now and the number of unsupported or disputed factual assertions underlying its policy and moral prescriptions is simply breathtaking. There is no hint of nuance or uncertainty.. just assertions. You will also note that although the document has plenty of theological footnotes, there is not one scientific reference provided, much less balanced references.

    I suspect that the the scientific framework of this document was assembled by CAGW agenda-driven functionaries within the Vatican, and handed off to Pope Francis as if it were undisputed fact, whereupon the Pope wrote the morally prescriptive parts on that basis without closely examining the science.

    So Mike, I suggest you don’t spend a lot of time worrying about this until it is subjected to some rigorous scientific scrutiny.

    • #15
    • June 18, 2015, at 8:59 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  16. Mike Rapkoch Moderator
    Mike Rapkoch

    Carey J.:What does a Catholic do? Become Orthodox. The Orthodox Church figured out that Popes were not infallible centuries before Martin Luther was born. Thus we have been spared the cognitive dissonance that comes from hearing an “infallible” authority spout nonsense.

    I was born Catholic and I’ll die Catholic. Besides, it will take many reads before I can figure out the theological significance, and hence the binding effects of the encyclical.

    • #16
    • June 18, 2015, at 10:17 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. Mike Rapkoch Moderator
    Mike Rapkoch

    Limestone Cowboy:

    Mike Rapkoch: To be sure, I need not fully endorse Francis’s’ economics. But I must still carefully study what the encyclical says, and look deeply at the factual and scientific themes therein.

    Mike, I’ve spent some time today on the science underpinning Laudato Si’s moral prescriptions. From even a cursory glance at the reported “factual” basis there are a considerable number of suppositions either unsupported by evidence, or contradicted by empirical observation. Consider just a single item 23 . (I could cite more, and may make it the topic of a complete post since Laudato Si is a target rich environment as unsupported factual assertions go.)

    From Item 23: “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” (No, no warming for nearly 20 years despite the increase in atmospheric CO2, which suggest that CO2 is not the driver of climate. And the long term warming trend began at the end of the Little Ice Age, well before human activity could have affected the atmosphere.)

    “In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events.” (No evidence for increased extreme weather events despite the increase in atmospheric CO2) . This is well documented by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. I’ve given “Laudato Si” a couple of reads now and the number of unsupported or disputed factual assertions underlying its policy and moral prescriptions is simply breathtaking. There is no hint of nuance or uncertainty.. just assertions. You will also note that although the document has plenty of theological footnotes, there is not one scientific reference provided, much less balanced references.

    I suspect that the the framework of this document was assembled by CAGW agenda-driven functionaries within the Vatican, and handed off to Pope Francis as if it were undisputed fact, whereupon the Pope wrote the morally prescriptive parts on that basis without closely examining the science.

    So Mike, I suggest you don’t spend a lot of time worrying about this until it is subjected to some rigorous scientific scrutiny.

    Good advice.

    • #17
    • June 18, 2015, at 10:17 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. TKC1101 Inactive

    I have been a lapsed Catholic for a while. I am now a non Catholic. Pedophile priests and now this. It is too much to bear.

    • #18
    • June 19, 2015, at 1:32 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  19. Nick Stuart Inactive

    We Protestants will receive you gladly.

    • #19
    • June 19, 2015, at 5:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. donald todd Inactive

    Arizona Patriot:I’m no expert, but wasn’t Catholic “Liberation Theology” — which was, in many respects, thinly disguised Marxism — largely a Latin American phenomenon? If I’m correct about this, there should be little surprise that the first Latin American Pope leans more to the Left politically and Communism.

    Before one decides that Francis is a liberation theology spokesman, one might find out how he handled the liberation theology crowd in his archdiocese. Having done that, one might be in a better position to make a prudential judgment on whether Francis is what you keep claiming.

    I would suggest to you that since Jesus is the Truth, you might take the time to try and find the truth, first, based on your claim of Whose you are. Not for me. Not for Francis. For Him and for you.

    • #20
    • June 19, 2015, at 5:51 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk andJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Pray that the cardinals don’t elect a communist next time around?

    It may be a sin for a Catholic to disobey their Pope, but I do not believe it is a sin to pray for a better Pope.

    After all, even if a bad Pope ruins your life on Earth, one must remember that eternity is still longer. Obeying a bad Pope is a small price for a Catholic to pay.

    On the other hand, I’m not Catholic.

    • #21
    • June 19, 2015, at 5:57 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  22. SoDakBoy Inactive

    Arizona Patriot: If I’m correct about this, there should be little surprise that the first Latin American Pope leans more to the Left politically and economically than his predecessors.

    I have seen this type of comment frequently about Francis, but it is simply an error to conflate this pope (or any individual) with the dominant political/cultural themes in his country.

    What if you rewrote this about John Paul2?

    If I remember correctly, Poland was a communist dicatorship in which everything was owned by the state and the individual was only important insofar as he could support the state.

    Francis did live in Argentina and did support the Peron regime in its early days, but became disillusioned and was somewhat of an outcast among the dominant political and clerical powers. So, I think it’s an error to lump him in with the stereotype of a Latin American politician.

    Unfortunately, we just have to read the encyclical.

    Seriously, it really is unfortunate because it has already been framed as being exclusively about Global warming and having nothing to do with the goodness of humanity.

    • #22
    • June 19, 2015, at 6:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Old Bathos Moderator

    Interesting summary by a very knowledgeable Irish climate issue writer (Richard Tol) here.

    I think that there is an element in the Catholic Church will cling to a vapid Marxist critique of free markets long after Marxists finally give up. I find it tiresome that a successful private sector initiative like Christianity starts thinking of itself as an issue-lobby to affect government policy. The childish notion that wealth is something extracted at the expense of nature and/or the poor in some evil zero-sum game is especially tiresome.

    Using political controls to redirect market economics and to impose drastic limits on energy use in furtherance of beliefs (“climate change”) that are ideological fetishes masquerading as science will hurt the poor most of all. All of Asia has already figured that out.

    An aesthetic of an ‘ecology of humanity’, poorly defined, offered in the contest of bad science and anti-free market mumbo jumbo will be readily hijacked by secular leftist language games. Yes, there is indeed a moral pony somewhere under the pile but I will leave the shoveling to others.

    • #23
    • June 19, 2015, at 6:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Profile Photo Member

    I don’t have to read the encyclical any more than I have to read Howard Zinn’s history books. We have the tweets. They say what they say. Il Papa e una communista.

    The tweets from the Pope tell me the Church is floundering. Communism is unChristian. Once enough power is held by a central force, religion is deemed a threat and abolished or persecuted. Collectivists cannot tolerate outliers. Everyone must work and contribute to the state. No hoarding. No actions of self-interest. No getting free education and healthcare and then leaving, either.

    Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Ceasars, render to God the things that are God’s”.

    It makes sense to me. The spiritual realm is different, higher, more important. Money, even comfort does not equal happiness. Envy is supposed to be a sin.

    That one tweet of Jesus contradicts the Pope’s tweets. The Pope is getting involved with the work of Caesar in trying to ‘help’ the poor.

    Really, this ‘concern’ for the oppressed masses makes me quite suspicious. I really don’t think these liberals who profess to want to help are doing it out of pure motives. They get pride and satisfaction. I’ll fight for you! They get to feel good about themselves while they divide people. They get political power, which is a commodity that has an increasing worth now that everything is political. Political power is protection now. The system is breaking down.

    • #24
    • June 19, 2015, at 6:48 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  25. Lockdowns are Precious Inactive
    Lockdowns are PreciousJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Pop Quiz:

    In 1962, Veterum Sapientia, an Apostolic Constitutionwas released by Pope St. John XXIII to the joyous sound of chirping crickets. An Apostolic Constitution, of course, outranks an Encyclical. Curiously, the aforementioned 185 page Laudato Si contains not a single reference to pre-conciliar magisterial documents.

    How does one determine which propositions are part of faith and morals, the level of certitude, and whether intellectual assent is required? Well, its meatless Friday, so I’d suggest a fishy website, a swim with Papa Benedito, a troll through some Golden Age goodies and then perhaps some light after dinner apertif with Ott and Denzinger.

    Enjoy your weekend.

    • #25
    • June 19, 2015, at 7:00 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. Profile Photo Member

    For an entity that persecuted Galileo and only grudgingly admitted they were wrong centuries later, I find this climate change talk risible.

    So is the Pope a heliocentric now? Or is this still geocentrism? Is saying that the sun causes global warming and not CO2, heresy?

    Catholicism is so confusing, I guess we are all just supposed to believe, or read endless apologies with tautological subtleties that confound us yet again. We can argue what the pope meant or not. We can argue the abstractions of communism and wonder that Lenin’s form of communism hasn’t been tried. Eventually we think we understand, but actually we just give up, or else simply believe.

    Wondering, is this that bad pope someone predicted  prophesized?

    • #26
    • June 19, 2015, at 7:08 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  27. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk andJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Old Bathos: I find it tiresome that a successful private sector initiative like Christianity starts thinking of itself as an issue-lobby to affect government policy.

    Well, but, ever since the 16th Century one of the main protestant critiques of the Roman church has always been that it is as much a government as it is a faith, or at least that it has (often) behaved as such.

    • #27
    • June 19, 2015, at 7:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk andJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Franco:For an entity that persecuted Galileo and only grudgingly admitted they were wrong centuries later, I find this climate change talk risible.

    Let’s be fair. The real problem with the Galileo Affair isn’t the fact that he and the Church had a disagreement. The real problem is that no church should have the authority to put people in jail.

    The Galileo Affair illustrates how the Roman Church was (and arguably still aspires to be) more than just a religion. It was (and arguably still aspires to be) a government.

    • #28
    • June 19, 2015, at 7:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk andJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Franco: That one tweet of Jesus contradicts the Pope’s tweets. The Pope is getting involved with the work of Caesar in trying to ‘help’ the poor.

    Let’s be fair. None of the tweets I’ve read direct Catholics to disobey their governments.

    Considering that today’s Caesars are fully on board with using environmental “issues” to impose their will on their subjects, one can easily argue that the Pope is conforming fully with Christ’s directive.

    After all, Christ never said, “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, except when Caesar is wrong.”

    • #29
    • June 19, 2015, at 7:22 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. Profile Photo Member

    Misthiocracy:

    Franco: That one tweet of Jesus contradicts the Pope’s tweets. The Pope is getting involved with the work of Caesar in trying to ‘help’ the poor.

    Let’s be fair. None of the tweets I’ve read direct Catholics to disobey their governments.

    Why be fair?

    What is il Papa doing meddling in politics and economics? His words will be used and twisted (they don’t have to even twist them) to mean what they want, to bolster their cause. The pope is promoting envy. What the Pope is doing is unfair and non-spiritual. He’s using his fame and his religion to promote a political solution. It’s way off base.

    Catholics should be offended. Not by me. By him and his cohorts in the Vatican.

    • #30
    • June 19, 2015, at 7:32 AM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.