Global Warming? The Pope is Wrong

Canada Free Press ^ | 04/27/15 | Al Caruba

[Sean_Anthony]

Vatican conference incomprehensively would advocate policies whose only result would be the reduction of human life in order to “sustain” the Earth

I have devoted the better part of more than two and a half decades speaking out against the charlatans that have created and maintained the greatest hoax ever imposed on modern man. At the heart of this hoax has been the United Nations environmental program and at the heart of that program is an agenda to initiate a massive redistribution of wealth from industrialized, successful nations to those who have suffered, as often as not, from being ruled by despots of one description or another.

It is with profound sorrow and disappointment that I must now speak out against Pope Francis, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, whom observers have noted has “a green agenda.” He has become an outspoken advocate on environmental issues, saying that taking action is “essential to faith” and calling the destruction of nature a modern sin.

Before proceeding, let me note that I am not Catholic. My thoughts regarding the Pope are rooted in my knowledge of the long record of lies, false predictions, and claims by various environmentalists over the years.

[dp0622]

as a Catholic, if one of the tenets is the pope is infallible, and it is now obvious he is, where does that leave me?

[Sacajaweau]

When are the Cardinals going to step to the plate?? and retire this guy.

I call Francis the Puppet Pope. He's just absolutely lost.

Francis should be the poster boy for Peter's Principle.

[Cicero]

As the article notes, the Catholic Church has always taught, in accordance with Genesis (and God’s words to Noah after the Flood), that human beings are the stewards over the earth and all of God’s creatures.

Real environmentalism is good. We should treat nature with care and respect. Unfortunately, tree huggers have their own crazy ideas about what environmentalism means, and that includes killing off human beings so nature can run wild. That is not what God called for.

I must admit that Pope Francis makes me very nervous. I think he’s a bit of a jerk. But I’ll wait and see what this Encyclical actually says, and not what it is reported to say, or what some of the liberal bishops want it to say.

I suspect it will be a mixture.

[livius]

He’s only infallible when speaking formally on faith and morals, and only then if it agrees with the constant teaching of the Church.

“Climate change” is not a matter for infallible pronouncement, just his personal opinion and something he thinks will gain him more of what he so eagerly craves, celebrityhood and the approval of the left.

So don’t worry about it.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

They are all watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

[dp0622]

thanks :)

[Dr. Thorne]

Title should read:

Global Warming? The Pope is a horse's patoot.

[G Larry]

You’re kidding, right?

He can also get math problems wrong.

Infallibility only applies to matters of Faith and Morals, as rendered Ex-cathedra.

In this case his advisor is scientifically compromised by his affiliations and the Pope is compromised by his exposure to Banana Republic Capitalism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please don't jump to erroneous conclusions. Science, politics, diplomacy, etc. are not "protected" by papal infallibility. Infallibility applies only to papal teaching on faith and morals, when he is formally defining a doctrine to be held "de fide" by the whole church.

Pretty good article on that here (LINK)

The Pope is not, and does not claim to be, an all-purpose oracle on sports brackets, the stock market, or tomorrow's weather. Faith and morals only.

There are areas where a moral principle overlaps with what is called a prudential judgment (a judgment of fact). In this case, the Pope could, for instance, say with authority that it is morally wrong to intentionally destroy air/soil/water/crops ---resources needed for our neighbors' survival, or for future generations.

But he could not make an authoritative judgment about whether anthropogenic, carbon-driven, "global warming" or "climate disruption" is or is not happening, or even the opposite ("global cooling"?) or what its causes or remedies might be.

These are science questions, and as such, they are outside of his area of competence.

[dp0622]

if you think this is the dumbest thing I’m going to ask on FR you will be very disappointed :)
not afraid to ask what I don’t now about, even at the risk of showing my lack of knowledge in too many areas :)

[Cicero]

Just so.

And, although the subject has not yet arisen in this thread, other threads have mentioned the Pope’s treatment of Galileo. Anyone who has closely studied that history should realize that the Pope of that time was Galileo’s friend and admirer. And he said that it was OK if Galileo proposed the THEORY that the earth goes around the sun, contrary to universal belief for thousands of years. Galileo only suffered comfortable imprisonment in his own house after he published his book, because he insisted on saying that the earth going around the sun was a FACT, not just a THEORY.

As scientists note, Galileo’s theory was only proven to be a fact, scientifically, something like a century later. The “proofs” Galileo offered, concerning tides and the moon, were not actually proofs at all, even though his theory eventually was proven to be true.

Catholics believe that God has promised that the Pope will not make pronouncements ex cathedra on faith and morals that are false or heretical. And so far, no Pope ever has, although there were a couple of instances when they came close—but didn’t. There have been bad Popes, like the Borgias, but not even the Borgias crossed that essential line.