[NYer]

Ping!

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Pope Che is absolutely destroying the credibility of the Vatican. Many Catholics including myself are outraged by the Pontiff’s far left radical politics and we are also tired of apologists for the Pope claiming everything is a bad translation.

[Rapscallion]

I believe a devil occupies the Vatican too.

[GreyFriar]

This is one of those times when I think Pope Francis’s silence would be there than putting across the implication that he feels “required” to comment on everything. Perhaps he ought to look, occassionally at President “Silent Cal” Coolidge’s example of not speaking on every topic.

[MrB]

“Climate Change” is about two things that should be anathema to Christian belief -

>worship of the creation instead of the Creator
>works-based salvation, denigrating Jesus’ all-atoning sacrifice as either unnecessary or insufficient

[Zionist Conspirator]

So let me return to my initial question. If the Catholic Church endorses the climate-change hypothesis, and later developments prove that hypothesis wrong, what will be the net result? The result, I fear, will be skepticism: not about climate issues, but about the authority of the Catholic Church. Critics of Catholicism will say that the Vatican had learned nothing from the Galileo affair, and had again exerted its moral authority improperly in a scientific debate.

Of course that unhappy outcome would occur only if the climate-change hypothesis is proven wrong. If the hypothesis is confirmed, then the Vatican’s support will seem justified. But since the debate is unsettled, is it prudent for the Vatican to gamble on the outcome?

Too late now. The Popes have long since accepted and taught evolution (and the idea that Genesis is mythology). And I bet you agree with them, Mr. Lawler.

[Amendment10]

I wish that the Vatican would show a little faith by embracing Genesis 8:22. That verse indicates that God promised that cold and heat, summer and winter would never cease for as long as the earth endures.