Pope Francis has detracted from legitimate scientific and economic debates regarding two issues, poverty and climate change, and has harmed the Catholic Church by his forays outside his areas of expertise.
His recently released Encyclical “Encyclical Laudato si‘” states that:
“Climate change is a global problem with serious implications, environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods; it represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day…the climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all…many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms…Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded”.
The Pope’s concern for the environment is a legitimate (if non-theological) interest. Insuring the cleanliness of Earth’s air and water, the biodiversity of its species, and the preservation of its wild spaces is in the interest of all. But the question of man-made climate change, despite the fervent attempts of its adherents, remains an open question. The planet’s climate has consistently changed, frequently shifting from warming periods to cooling periods and back again long before the advent of industrialization, automobiles, or the extensive discharge of chemicals into the air.
Supporters of the man-made climate change concept have employed non-scientific tactics involving political pressure and the doctoring of data to in their advocacy. The Vatican has not indicated what scientific data the head of the Church relied on, and how rigorous his research has been. It is most distressing that, according to the Washington Post, he did not seek alternative views, an arrogance reminiscent of the infamous 1610 trial of Galileo.
If Pope Francis had expressed a deep concern for the health of the planetary environment without entering into the climate change debate, he could have accomplished more success in calling attention and concern to the issue in a far less partisan manner.
The best sources of magnesium tadalafil cialis http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Board-Diversity-Policy.pdf are wheat germ, peanuts, almonds, soybeans, vegetables, apples and bananas. According to The Sexual Advice Association in viagra usa pharmacy the UK, sexual issues affect 50% of women and become more common as they get older. The medicine contains sildenafil citrate, which is an FDA-approved levitra pill ingredient for curing impotence in men. Autor, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Tainted products buy pfizer viagra discover my pharmacy place consumers at risk of injury and death, especially those consumers with underlying health conditions.” FDA dietary supplement laws do not permit the use of pharmaceutical ingredients in a dietary supplement. The Pontiff compounded his error by calling for what amounts to international control of environmental resources. The closest analogy to his concept can be seen in the past and present actions of communist regimes. Absent the separation of powers, checks and balances, and competing influences characteristic of more capitalistic systems, the environment has and is suffering tremendously under the top-down power structure of leftist regimes. When the Iron Curtain fell, Western Europeans, particularly those in West Germany, were aghast at the terrible toll on the environment that became evident in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European nations under Moscow’s control. The same can be seen today in China, which is the worst polluter on the planet.
Pope Francis has displayed a similar lack of knowledge in his approach to poverty. He correctly notes that “…Christians are called to confront the poverty of our brothers and sisters, to touch it, to make it our own and to take practical steps to alleviate it…” However, it is clearly evident that the system that has far more successfully reduced poverty is not the socialism he essentially alludes to, but capitalism. Indeed, even the prime alleged “success story” of Communist China is wholly dependent on the sale of items to capitalist economies, predominately the United States. A mere redistribution of wealth from “rich” nations to “poor” nations essentially creates a one-time solution that will quickly fade, as the ineffective socialist and other top-down economies will fail to create the conditions for ongoing prosperity.
All people are at least partially influenced by the region in which they were brought up, and the South American-born Pontiff is no exception. He appears sympathetic to the Latin American Catholic movement known as “Liberation theology,” which embraces a left-wing, political view of Christianity far more than the traditional spiritual elements which are its true essence. Interestingly, Pope Francis’s predecessors took a rather dim view of this, so the current head of the world’s Catholics is at odds with his predecessors.
The world’s 1.2 billion Catholics are under no obligation to follow the Pontiff’s scientific or political views. While the Pope’s word on matters of religious doctrine is, essentially, law for the church, his views on other matters are essentially his own opinion.
But he is the Pope, and his views on any topic are cause for great interest throughout Christianity. (Catholic Bible 101.com notes “The doctrine of infallibility, officially defined at the Vatican I council of 1870, says that when the Pope is officially defining church dogma, the Holy Spirit is also. There are three requirements for infallibility to be invoked: 1. The pronouncement must be made by the official successor to Peter. 2. The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. 3. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, and must be intending to proclaim a doctrine that binds the entire Church to assent.”)
When the Pope ventures into areas beyond his theological expertise, that can cause problems. Damien Thompson, writing in Spectator writes: “What should worry Francis is that moderate conservative Catholics are losing confidence in him. The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who is no one’s idea of an extremist, believes that ‘this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him’. Cristina Odone, former editor of the Catholic Herald, says that ‘Francis achieved miracles with his compassionate, off-the-cuff comments that detoxified the Catholic brand. He personifies optimism — but when he tries to turn this into policy he isn’t in command of the procedures or the details. The result is confusion.’”