US Catholics ready to follow Pope's 'marching orders' on climate change

MSN news ^ | June 18, 2015 | Suzanne Goldenberg

[detective]

Leaders of the Catholic Church in America took their “marching orders” from the Pope’s encyclical on Thursday, fanning out to Congress and the White House to push for action on climate change.

The high-level meetings offered a first glimpse of a vast and highly organised effort by the leadership of America’s nearly 80 million Catholics to turn the Pope’s moral call for action into reality.

“It is our marching orders for advocacy,” Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Archbishop of Louisville, said. “It really brings about a new urgency for us.”

[IrishBrigade]

When you said “walk away from the Faith...” I thought that meant the Christian faith.

fine...I should have stipulated the modernist RCC...

[hosepipe]

Meanwhile, most Protestants seem to believe the world is only 40,000 years old.

---

If there is NO God they might be WRONG.....

IF there is... they might be correct..
and some others just rolled “Snake-eyes”.. in the game of life..

[TangibleDisgust]

twice you’ve called jesuits the “elite” of the church.

that smacks of some sort of conspiracy nonsense of which i’m not well versed. in fact, it sounds like the sort of thing one would find in a book by Dan Brown.

just to be clear, there is no “elite order” in the church. Catholics are just Catholics. there are different orders that those who are called to serve can join, and they have different goals/callings, but none are above or beneath any other. the jesuits tend to be involved in education. i find them to be the most liberal order from my own experience and don’t much care for what’s happened to jesuit universities since Vatican II (aside - i’m an alum of one such university), but that doesn’t mean that the current pope is in favor of population control, which is what i think you’re implying. that alone would put him in stark contrast with a fundamental teaching of the church and would disqualify him even from being a priest, much less the pope!

is the pope liberal by US political definitions? yes. is he a socialist? maybe. is he deliberately aiding and abetting the forces determined to undermine the teachings of the church? no (or at least i hope not, because maybe then we would be facing the end of times).

[Publius]

The Jesuits like to think of themselves as a kind of elite. The term "God's Marines" is occasionally used by some of them.

But the actual situation is a bit more complicated.

The Polish pope understood that the talent pool among his bishops was a bit shallow, so he reached out to the religious orders to find episcopal talent. Bergoglio, Martini, O'Malley and others became bishops because they caught the papal eye with the quality work they were doing in their respective orders. Bergoglio made it all the way to the top.

[Texan5]

My family all thought Vat II was a huge mistake-we’re traditional Catholics of Hispanic ancestry-I was in my mid-teens, but I listened to their opinions, and still think they were right. The vatican needs to quit canonizing every pope out of hand and listen to what the rest of the Catholics in the world think...

[betty boop]

I thought the evil pope was that pope preceding the final pope, the last pope being a good man. Do I have the prophecy wrong?

I dunno. Do you?

That was not my understanding of Nostradamus.

Indeed, there's no way to validate his claims. But I can see how "Peter the Roman" — his designated LAST pope — can be interpreted. First, "Peter" signifies Christ's "rock," on whom He intends to build His Church. To then say that this Peter is a "Roman" might be to suggest that the original Peter has reoriented his mission away from Christ's spiritual mission, into purely secular concerns and forms of organization.

In which case, the Church would be: Utterly DEAD. The Holy Spirit has fled from it.

The fact remains, Nostradamus held himself out as a "seer of the future." Generally, I do not place much stock in such claims....

I assume that you are not Roman Catholic in persuasion. So may not be as keenly interested in whether Nostradamus was "true or false" in his report as RCs are. [Not that I am one, officially, there being a certain stumblingblock in canon law that I cannot overcome, outside of paying for an indulgence, or in last necessity, a dispensation.]

Notwithstanding, let there be no mistake: Theologically, I am RC right down to the ground. My problem is RC will not accept me into their community. Or at least, not so far.

Which only means I have to throw myself on the mercy of Christ, my Savior.

Nostradamus' prediction really is a side issue for me, of no real consequence.

[FredZarguna]

twice you’ve called jesuits the “elite” of the church.

that smacks of some sort of conspiracy nonsense

Really?

Here are the definitions of the words, since you seem not to be a native English speaker:

elite: n, a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.

conspiracy: n, a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Now that you've been disabused about the meanings of two common words which have no conceptual overlap other than that they involve a "group," let alone nexus that I can determine, let's deal with the rest.

The Jesuit order is involved in education at what were at one time some of America's most elite universities. This goes directly to the point that the pope is not a stupid or naive man. And I said that. Twice. I can say it again, and he will still not be a stupid or naive man.

Next: Am I insinuating that he favors population control? No, I am pointing out that his closest lay adviser on environmental issues believes our environmental problems are a direct result that there are too many people, and that we need more contraception and more abortions. A lot more. He wants six of the seven billion people in the world not to be around in the next generation.

You may draw your own conclusions as you like. I am only asking a question: why is Jeffery Sachs a part of this discussion?

As for this statement: is he deliberately aiding and abetting the forces determined to undermine the teachings of the church? no (or at least i hope not, because maybe then we would be facing the end of times).

All I can say is, come now, my FRiend. It's not like he would be the first pope who did that. And yet somehow the world endures.

[xzins]

It’s only a curiosity with me. I think at the election of Benedict there was a discussion about it on Free Republic. Looking it up isn’t real high on my Thursday night list of fun things to do. (Have you ever noticed that Thursday night isn’t a particularly fun night for the most part?)

I guess there’s light enough outside to go pull weeds and get mosquito bit.

[betty boop]

What do you do about it?..... Only one thing.. try to be less imperfect yourself.. BUT; it’s damned hard if you’re ME....

Or ME....

We humans do not "self-perfect." We cannot even claim credit for becoming progressively "good" (or better) over time, all by ourselves.

We need God to complete us.

And so you are right to rest to prayer. That's not only you; that's me, too.

May our Lord ever bless you, dearest 'pipe, my brother in Him!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Notice from the Vatican Office of Translation:

Before "poor translation" is made the scapegoat of this latest encylical by the Pope , we would like to post this important announcement to the faithful worldwide.

DO NOT BLAME US!!! We do not tell our Great Papa what to say. He says it and we try to figure out what it means in Italian, let alone all the languages of the world!

We are not charged with perfection in translation. In fact, none of us speak a second language at all!

This may surprise many readers of this notice, so I will describe our role here at Vatican Central... or VeeCee, as we call it.

First, just months ago, we were all homeless on the Streets of Rome. The translation office is a jobs program for homeless Italians. Through the kindness of the Great leaders at VeeCee, 8 of us were recruited to a very fulfilling job with benefits. Many of us previously used Google Translate, so we had every qualification needed. Please note, our instructions are to get the message out fast. You may have noticed our Great Pope speaks "off the cuff" quite frequently, or as we say here in VeeCee, "between bites of pasta."

For this reason, we are not charged with accuracy, but with speed. Blinding speed. And between you and me, we are fast. We don't like to miss meals. Done is done. Good enough, is good enough.

With this in mind, please try to speak kindly of us so that we can continue in this important role.

Sincerely,
Luigi, Antonio, Giuseppe, Michael, Maria, Giovanna, Francesco, & Concetta

[wagglebee]

It's the prophecy of St. Malachy, not Nostradamus, and it is almost certainly a forgery/hoax.

[marron]

Speaking of Benedict, I miss that guy.

He always spoke and wrote with great clarity, not just in clear language but clear philosophically and theologically.

The current occupant is always a bit incoherent both in language and philosophically. He is anything but clear, and he seems unable to be. At this point you have to conclude that this reflects the quality of his mind.

[betty boop]

It's the prophecy of St. Malachy, not Nostradamus, and it is almost certainly a forgery/hoax.

It's unclear to me from what you wrote, who is the hoaxer in this piece??? St. Malachy? Or Nostradamus?

One is a canonized saint. The other a prognosticator of future events.

I wonder what you mean (or imply) by saying that St. Malachy's prophecy "is almost certainly a forgery/hoax."

Does this put you in the Nostradamus camp???

BTW, what, exactly, was St. Malachy's prophecy? We know already what Nostradamus' was:

Last pope: Peter the Roman. (Whatever that signifies.)

Not trying to stir up trouble here, just trying to get on the same page with you.

Please understand, I am a very slow learner. So please be patient with me....

[daniel1212]

white Catholics voted by a huge margin for Romney last time.

18 or 19 percent versus Obama, but Latinos are increasingly becoming the majority of RCs due to immigration.

• In the 2012 election (preliminary exit-poll analysis), white Evangelicals (23% of the electorate) voted 79%/20% Romney/Obama; Protestants overall (53% of the electorate) voted 57%/42%; black Protestants (9% of the electorate) and other Christian voted 5%/95%; Catholics overall (25% of the electorate) voted 48%/50%; white Catholics (18% of the electorate) voted 59%/40%; and Hispanic Catholics (5% of the electorate) voted 21%/75% Romney/Obama http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx

• Weekly Church attendees (28% of the electorate) voted 57%/39% Romney/Obama; more than weekly (14% of the electorate) voted 63%/36% and “never” attendees (17% of the electorate) were at 34%/62% Romney/Obama. ^

• According to Barna, in 2012 45% of the people who voted in November indicated that their faith affected how they voted. 72% of Evangelicals, 34% non-evangelical born again voters, and 19% of Catholics, 17% of non-Christian faith said their faith affected their presidential preference a lot. 9% of voters overall and 10% of evangelicals felt strongly that Mr. Romney's Mormon connection diminished their likelihood of supporting him. http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/595-the-role-of-faith-in-the-2012-election

• Evangelicals supported Mr. Romney 81% to 17% over Mr. Obama (a smaller percentage for the Republican candidate than in previous years). Born again Christians who are not evangelicals supported Romney 56% to 43% over the incumbent. Catholics supported Mr. Obama by 57% to 42% — the largest margin since Bill Clinton topped Bob Dole by 21 points in 1996. Protestant overall voted 57% to 42% in favor of Mr. Romney. ^

[xzins]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

[betty boop]

At this point you have to conclude that this reflects the quality of his mind.

I never had to worry about quality of mind respecting Benedict XVI: He is a world-class intellect that few in his generation can match. And his predecessor, John Paul II, was another virtually unparalleled intellect. Both men harnessed their immense intellectual gifts in service of our Lord, and I never had any question or doubt about that.

But I can't see (yet) what this new guy is up to....

One hypothesis is that he is not immune from the influence of the prevailing "spirit of the age."

Not another word on that subject here.

[betty boop]

Oh for heaven's sake, dear brother, I have already seen that Wikipedia article.

It didn't make any sense to me the first go-round. Or the second.

So, would you kindly just cut to the chase and tell me in what way it makes any sense to you?

[daniel1212]

Just like Protestant churches and their followers regarding homosexual “marriage,” not all Catholics will follow the Pope’s ideas with this particular issue. We’ve had worse popes, and we will survive this one.

But RCs present the papacy and magisterium and submission to it as the solution to false beliefs and division due to souls interpreting Scripture as the supreme authority.

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

“All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”

“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?"

“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience is highly honoring to Almighty God,..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

While RCs look to their non-infallible leaders, the problem with sola ecclesia, in which the church via its papacy and magisterium is supreme, and souls are to render implicit submission to them, is that insofar as when leadership goes South then so do their followers.

There is a difference in the kind of submission infallible, teachings, irreformable divinely revealed truths (which arguably constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice), require (which, according to various Catholic sources, is that of "sacred assent," "internal assent," that being "assent of faith" "without wavering," "submission of faith," "assent of mind and heart," “obedience of faith,” "theological faith," “divine and Catholic faith.”

One who doubts these articles lacks faith that Rome possesses ensured veracity, and falls into heresy), and "authentic" but non-definitive teachings (ordinary teaching requires "ordinary assent," that being "religious submission of will and intellect," submission of mind and will," which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching")." An obstinate refusal to give "assent of faith" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of faith, while obstinate refusal to give "religious assent" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of charity. - (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian, 32; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html).

Some Catholics actually define 3 or 4 levels of magisterial teaching, the first being papal ex cathedra decrees, and then universal infallible conciliar pronouncements in union with the pope and following from his presumed authority, and the third being papal encyclicals, and the fourth being non-definitive teachings. Some lump 1+2 together to only have 3, while others lump 3+4 together, with the fourth becoming more general non-doctrinal papal teaching, and as allowing more room to dissent. But public dissent is never sanctioned from what i can see.

However, not only may there be different levels of teaching found in the same document, but what level each teaching falls under (and how many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are), and what level of assent is required, as well as aspects of their meaning, are all subject to variant and varying degrees of interpretations.

Consider what can be required to determine the magisterial; level of just papal teaching:

The key is the intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing definitive teaching from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is infallible, as on level 2. He may be giving a decision on a previously debated point - as on level 3, then it falls under the promise of Christ in Lk 10. 16, and so is also infallible. Or it may be a still lesser intention - then we have a case like that envisioned in Canon 752 of the New Code of Canon Law: "Not indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme Pontiff, or the College of Bishops [of course, with the Pope] pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act." ...What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in the mind, as the wording indicates. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt

Then you have the disagreement btwn traditional RCs and V2 Caths. As one post wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

Yet as JP2 non-infallibly stated:

You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (Paul VI, Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)

The disagreement on magisterial levels and the meaning of teachings is contrary to the RC model for discernment of Truth and unity, under which the magisterium is to be looked to and submitted, and a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the sure teacher by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.

Thus RCs who examine the evidence for certain V2 and modern teachings and judge them as allowing for and requiring dissent are labelled by some of their brethren as basically being Protestant, and deal with the problem of disagreement over what teachings are infallible, or even "authentic" by holding that faithful Catholics are simply to obey with religious assent of intellect and will any public papal teaching or Catholic doctrine by the authentic magisterium, whether infallible or not. Of course, just what is "authentic" - an ambiguous term often used - sees disagreement.

According to a SSPV source, arguing against "resist but recognize the pontiff," Pius X stated,

Obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces .

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go , and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority... http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x < /p>

As concerns encyclicals, that these requires religious dissent in general is seen as supported by,

Humani Generis: Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Since the year 1878, when Pope Leo XIII began to rule, as Christ’s vicar on earth, over the Church militant, over one hundred fifty encyclical letters have been issued by the Sovereign Pontiffs...The distinguished theologians who deny the papal encyclicals the status of infallible documents teach, none the less, that the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.....This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm:

This would seem- esp. if the doctrine of Pius X is deemed worthy of assent of mind and will -RCs are to thus follow the anti-fracking, seeming socialist, anti-capitalist, doctrinal marginalizing, evangelical-affirming non-proselytization pope, as well as all V2 teaches, or t varyijg degrees, to be of the traditionalists who dissent from so much modern teaching based upon their interpretation of historical teaching.

[daniel1212]

“The majority of the Catholic denomination, ARE liberals”

You need to learn more about Catholics.

Indeed, as while there are exceptions, the majority of the Catholic denomination, ARE liberals, here and in S. America at least. You need to learn more about Catholics.

And note that Rome counts and treats such as members in life and in death.

[xzins]

It doesn’t make any sense. It is simply something to know and then to file away under “curiosity to pull out and look at this every now and then.”

I’m not trying to be difficult, but to quote someone or other, “there is no there there.”

It’s not scripture.