Apocalyptic and Utopian: On Pope Francis’ Bolivian Manifesto
James V. Schall, S.J., The Catholic World Reporter
The Holy Father is certainly against abortion, euthanasia, and population control. What seems unclear to many is how advisers who hold these practices necessary in view of theories of ecology are at all helpful to what the Pope is really after. We all should be on the side of growth and virtue, not death and control.
Pope Francis’s Plan to Impoverish New York . . .and the Gotham mayor who embraces it
Oren Cass, City Journal
Mayor Bill de Blasio’s performance Tuesday at a Vatican climate-change conference called to mind the college sophomore who arrives late to a seminar, clearly hasn’t done the reading, but monopolizes the discussion nonetheless.
Wait—what? Pope Francis, feminist? In what sense is Francis—a man who presides over one of the most deeply patriarchal institutions in human history, which bans women from positions of authority and restricts them to subservient roles; who preaches a doctrine of “separate spheres” for women that reads like a musty Victorian-era relic; and whose unwavering support of Catholic doctrine on abortion and birth control is responsible for the death and suffering of countless women across the globe—a feminist? To label Francis a “feminist” is downright Orwellian. It twists the meaning of the word beyond all recognition.
Archbishop Blase Cupich joined US Environmental Protection Agency officials Friday to mark the Church’s stewardship initiative, an answer to Pope Francis’ entreaty to preserve the earth. Archdiocese officials plan to benchmark each of the 2,700 buildings — churches, schools, offices and multiple-family housing. They will track energy consumption and consider each building’s structure using the EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager to rank them from 1 to 100.
The Gospel according to PETA
Rick Berman, The Washington Times
Pope Francis’ climate change encyclical, released last month, is an example of the left’s influence within a mainstream religious institution. But that only goes so far, as the Catholic Church has rejected a number of planks of social liberalism. So the left is also working to change attitudes among the flock, not just the shepherds.
Time to raise green warriors
Carlito M. Torres, The Manila Times
In his encyclical “Laudato Si,” or “Be Praised,” the Pope enumerated the grave implications of climate change. He warned that thousands of plant and animal species disappear each year, and that the “unprecedented destruction of ecosystems” means “serious consequences for all of us” if humanity fails to act.
A Rocky First Review for a Climate Paper Warning of a Stormy Coastal Crisis
Andrew Revkin, The New York Times
On Thursday, I wrote about the rocky rollout, prior to peer review, of “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous.”… But, after less than two days of public review, the paper is being revealed as much more of a rough sketch, a provocation, than a thorough, deeply grounded new thesis.
A green light for the Pope’s discussion on climate change
Eleanor Cook, Silver Chips Online
For years, the Roman Catholic Church has not addressed many hot issues, including climate change. However, on May 24, Pope Francis released an encyclical, or a letter from the pope to all of the Roman Catholic bishops of the world, calling for action to prevent climate change. While this has exposed him to some criticism, his opinion is important for the growth of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Francis’ actions should be celebrated as an effort that will bring one of the globe’s most massive organizations, as well as millions of people throughout the earth, back onto the world stage.
Pope likely to alter economic message in U.S.
Daniel Burke, CNN
Q: Have you been surprised by any of the reactions to the Pope’s statement on the environment, “Laudato Si?”
The majority of reactions were very positive. Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and Archbishop Justin Welby of the Anglican Church wrote a very nice article in The New York Times on the same day the encyclical was published. A small minority was against it, and of this minority we can say that the underlying reason was because these people live off of oil, and it’s clear that the encyclical teaches that the use of this material is not the best thing for the question of climate change and that we need to find new ways to produce energy.
“Laudato Si” was mainly concerned with climate change and expressed the pope’s position that counteracting climate change is a moral imperative. However, you can also find the following passage in the encyclical: ”Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.” It certainly makes is sound like animals can expect to wind up in heaven, too, given the whole “each creature” language.
Pope’s climate encyclical divides American opinion
John Light, Grist
The pope is not a politician, so he doesn’t really have to worry about polls. But in theory, his encyclical and other pro-climate-action stances by Christian groups have the power to make inroads with conservatives who are more likely to put the opinions of their faith leaders over those of both scientists and politicians. That, at least, is what many climate hawks have hoped — but the party split observed by the Quinnipiac folks raises questions about whether that will work.
The Errant Environmental Encyclical
Paul Driessen, Townhall.com
Little solar panels on huts, subsistence and organic farming, and bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines have serious cost, reliability and sustainability problems of their own. If Pope Francis truly wants to help the poor, he cannot rely on these “alternatives” or on UN and Big Green ruling elite wannabes. Who are they to decide what is “ecologically feasible,” what living standards people will be “permitted” to enjoy, or how the world should “more fairly” share greater scarcity, poverty and energy deprivation?