CNA Staff, Dec 1, 2023 / 12:41 pm (CNA).
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
It’s disturbing to me that Bergoglio is weighing in on “climate change” when he clearly knows absolutely nothing about climate science.
The article says that retired biologist Susan Varmaloff has a great regard for Bergoglio’s expertise in this area. Note that she herself is not a climatologist or a heliologist. And yet she, too, seems to have swallowed the entire global warming scam.
As the article indicates, the subject is a complex one. Which is why the cartoonish CO2-as-villain explanation is so laughable.
Here are a few brief points about climate change that people should know.
• The earth’s climate is changing. Indeed, the climate has always changed. Look at a graph of the earth’s average temperature that goes back a few million years. It looks like a yo-yo. Yet life on earth has always adjusted. It’s what life does. Devastating the economies of entire nations in an impossible quest for an unchanging climate is needlessly imposing misery on humanity. Yet climate alarmists like Bergoglio — or Varmaloff — never even say how they came up with the idea that the earth’s climate is generally stable.
• A 1.5-degree warming of the climate in a century is hardly the “existential threat” that the warmists claim. Think of the people now living 60 miles south of your home. That’s what your hometown will be like after a century of warming. What is their lifestyle like with a climate that’s 1.5 degrees warmer than yours? Is their town an uninhabitable hell-on-earth? Are they bursting into flames atop thousand-foot-high sand dunes? No? You might want to think about that.
• Carbon dioxide is not a poison. It’s not a pollutant. It’s a necessity for life on earth. Indeed, carbon is the molecule of life. In eons past, the earth did experience significantly higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we have now. The difference then? Plants thrived, food was plentiful and large mammals literally covered the earth, from pole to pole. In sum, more carbon dioxide equals more plants equals more animals equals a better, less stressful life for all. It’s hardly the “existential threat” that Bergoglio and the rest of the climate stooges claim.
• The “scientists” we keep hearing about who are sounding the climate alarm are meteorologists — weathermen. Their climate hysteria is based on computer programs that are not validated. They are closed loops with no way to account for all of the parameters that determine climate now, let alone decades from now. (Such as solar activity, the earth’s magnetic field, etc.) These are the same types of computer programs that predicted that the deaths from COVID-19 would be exponentially higher than what actually came to pass. Lowering all of humanity’s living standards based on such flimsy computer modeling is diabolical.
• There are indications that the sun may be entering a period of relative dormancy, as it did for a few hundred years, starting in the fourteenth century. The inactive sun meant less energy released, which led to the Little Ice Age in America and Europe. Rivers and canals in northern Europe froze, vineyards were destroyed, cereal production in Ireland was devastated, and famine hit France. (Interestingly, the cold also caused hardwood trees to grow denser and harder, leading to the remarkable tone of Stradivarius’ string instruments.)
I could go on and on. And on.
For example, about the indications that the earth’s magnetic field may now be in the process of flipping. This will affect how much of the sun’s energy strikes the earth. The problem is, the last time such a thing took place — an event known as the Laschamp excursion — was more than 40,000 years ago. So information on how earth’s climate was affected is hard to come by.
Anyway, it is quite clear that Bergoglio knows next to nothing about the climate. What’s surprising is that he offers such a definitive statement about a field that is totally unknown to him.
Wait. Now that I think about it, I see that it was inevitable.
(Sigh.)
Thanks for such a thorough presentation of the “global warming hysteria.” May saner heads prevail.
As a physicist who holds an additional degree in electrical engineering, I’ll agree that Francis is more ignorant of science and engineering than Catholic theology. Like most advocates, he has no idea that wind power ultimately does more net damage to the environment than it contributes to power production. And the ingrained ideologically driven ignorance about viable nuclear power precludes obtaining much of its real value for the future.
But lost in all the hysteria is the real driving force of the hysteria: moral displacement. Marxist environmentalism is nothing new. Climate nonsense kicked it into high gear in direct proportion to global group think amorality towards the sacredness of life. The more hysteria that can be generated about an imaginary crisis, the more abortion promoting population policies can be made to seem benign. The odds that a man like Francis being able to figure this out are none-existent. He can’t even link the sex revolution to abortion.
Edward, brilliantly stated.
Edward,under “normal”circumstances, I would agree with you. But we are not living in “normal” circumstances where your analytical skills are appropriate. No, I believe we are living in very very dark times, and I believe that the “smoke of hell” has entered the our Lord’s Holy Sanctuary in Rome. The point being that, it could be very well that the Pope does know exactly what he is doing. Now ponder on that morsel of knowledge and it opens up an whole new understanding of the “Powers and Principalities that are at war even now” over God’s children here on earth. Except, now we are seeing battles now being played out before our very spiritual eyes! Yes, Jesus Christ Lord and Savior will ensure that great, humble and holy souls, on fire for the Lord, as our Lord has show us in recent months, and how they are being white martyred for the faith. That’s right!. the persecution is real and it has begun. The battle lines are being drawn and most clearly defined and it’s Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who will ensure that HIS CHURCH ON EARTH, WHO HE HAS ENTRUSTED TO HIS MOST HOLY MOTHER, THE MOTHER OF GOD, will be and remain HOLY!!!!! Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!! AMEN! and AMEN!! Alohaaaa!!
Thank you. One of many things that most mystifies me about Francis, or any Catholic Christian, is the lack of an ability to exercise sufficient moral imagination to always be aware of a social ethos and the consequences from factors that compromise it, at every possible scale.
Despite the amount of words in your comment, nothing you have said is particularly intelligent or even worth reading.
Please provide me with a refund on the time and energy I wasted reading your incohetent drivel. You owe me.
Jessica. I said I was not a scientist. Your trained eye shows how true that is.
I had two objectives. Protect Pope Francis, (Bergoglio), from the unbelievable diatribe, even by faith leaders. And attempt to express my fear that we are ignoring or diminishing the climate change facing us today.
My only salvation is my factual research. I really believe my efforts were reasonable.
God bless.
If global warming is historically cyclical, why would mankind want to compound the issue by ignoring it and spew many tons of fluorocarbons and carbon dioxide emissions into the sky, especially after the industrial revolution, that eroded the ozone layer to allow the powerful Sun’s direct rays to warm the planet? Before the 19th century the ozone layer was not a concern, a sunbather could get a safe tan.
Currently there are over 8 billion humans on Earth. Hundreds of millions of carbon emitting plants, cars, trucks, planes and trains. Recently in Peking the smog was so great that the Chinese had to wear masks. No one knows when the last global warming was, but it might have happened in prehistoric times when the inhabitants were few, non-polluting Neanderthals. Is anyone in the carbon emission business doing anything?
US car manufacturers are spending billions to make electric vehicles, even though battery technology is lacking. Forbes: The oil industry has a plan to reduce carbon emissions. More than three-quarters (79%) say sustainability issues are a major concern or top-of-mind at all stages of the manufacturing process, and almost half (47%) have committed to a net zero carbon goal.
Even if it were true that the earth is not warming, I will continue to opt on the cautious side because I want to preserve God’s miracle planet, the only home, for our children
Yes, it’s always about the children 🙄.
Dear Miss Morgan,
OF COURSE the ozone layer was not a concern before the 19th Century since it was discovered only in 1913. The first hole in the ozone layer was not discovered until 1985.
Hello Morgan,
I believe we’ve had warming and cooling periods in every era. The Vikings experienced that in Greenland. There have been mini Ice Ages. Volcanic eruptions affect the climate and the activity of the Sun does also, but I’m not sure how that works exactly.
At the end of the day we’re not in charge of the climate but we are instructed to be good stewards of Creation. We can accomplish that in sensible ways without fearmongering and anxiety. A fearful people are an easily manipulated people.
Much of what you say is misinformed, maybe not by intent, but from having seldom strayed from propagandistic sources. Do you really believe living vegetation produces carbon dioxide? And it has now been established that “holes” in the Ozone layer are naturally cyclical as well. There is no carbon industry, nor is there such a thing as “zero emissions” in any human activity. Neither is there nor could there be such a thing as electric vehicles. Manufacturing processes all have embedded energy derived from source power production. All the power utilized in manufacturing an internal combustion engine vehicle, presuming a hydrocarbon power plant powering the factory, consumes the equivalent use of 25 thousand miles of driving that vehicle with HC fuel consumed. For an electric vehicle manufactured, the level is 130 thousand miles equivalent consumption of HC energy. So the electric vehicle is 105 thousand miles behind in HC use, so called “fossil fuel”, consumption out of the factory. This does not take into account all the HC production necessary to create the electric power to charge the battery over the life of the vehicle to “catch up” with the internal combustion engine in HC efficiency. By the time it does the battery will have to be replaced representing another waste of HC energy that was necessary to manufacture the battery. A close examination of the data in all factors reveals there is never really a break even “catch up” point in HC efficiency. Electric vehicles exist just to appease the invincibly gullible and PR for those businesses held hostage by forces who fault them for problems for which they are not responsible.
An encyclical on climate science?
I wonder when we can look forward to Bergoglio’s apostolic letter on interior design…
Fly fishing…
Orchidology…
Ventriloquism.
BTW, before you Bergoglio fans object, if Bergoglio can pontificate on climate science, then you cannot possibly object when I spout off about poping.
Much too funny. The “Love-Bergoglio-Crowd” will hate you for mocking them.
Sound like you are spewing hatred when referring to Pope Francis!
If you’re referring to my post, I aspire to “spew” truth. It only comes across to you as hate because you live in a World of Lies and Deceit.
World of hate? I surely live in a world of hate, lies and deceit when we continue to support autocratic-leaning political leaders. When we need them most urgently when our democracy is in imminent peril our elected representatives and religious leaders remain complicitly silent.
Thank you and God bless
You’re sprinkling some good salt here, Briney. I do think, however, that Bergo could speak on ventriloquism. He has amply demonstrated how to be a mouthpiece for spiritual entities who don’t have the human capability to speak or act.
We’re here on this earth because of the Almighty and the sun that sends us energy, and also I believe because of the temp of the earth’s core.
How much coal is the CCP burning to make us one solar panel?
It takes energy to produce electricity and there are no large amounts of green energy available. In addition, some of the source materials for “green” have been derived from slave labor (read Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives)
Is ripping up the earth/ocean surfaces for a few pounds of minerals worth it, when we could use nuclear reactors and natural gas? Windmills cannot be recycled and they have other drawbacks.
We need to be pragmatic as well as forward looking – for example, what would we in the Midwest do in cold months if there’s no fuel available? Congresswoman Tlaib told Jamie Dimon to stop making energy exploration loans effective immediately – I wonder what she heats her MI home with? More recently, our VP sent out her Thanksgiving greeting tweet standing next to her nice gas kitchen stove, which the administration has promised to scuttle in the near future.
For those that don’t know, both Ford and GM have recently acknowledged that the EV market is much less in demand than they thought it would be, and they are having to scale back.
I just keep thinking about all those people who spend several hours a day driving the 101 in California or commute into Chicago on I-90 (packed bumper to bumper traffic and often at a standstill)–can all of them afford electric cars?! Maybe. But probably not. And the mountains of old lithium batteries in the Nevada desert will get even higher.
I also think about people in the Northern States riding bikes to work in a snowstorm, or folks in the South walking to work when their job is several miles from their house and the temperature is 105 with 100% humidity. Not everyone can work from home.
And then there’s China, which has been shown to produce most of the emissions. Who is going to confront them and tell them to “go green”?
I think everyone needs to get real here! I’m getting ready to drive 10 miles to babysit my grandson, and I don’t plan to walk or bike, and on a Social Security income, I don’t plan to buy an electric car anytime soon! We need to sit back and think through this with real life in mind.
The environmental movement is first, foremost and always a scam, aimed at diverting public funds into private pockets.
The Church needs no lessons from Gates, Soros, Clinton & co on caring for God’s creation.
I am sure the Pope realizes that his recommendations are a prescription for plunging even more of the world’s population into poverty. Nut what could be better than a world in which most of us are poor, dark, cold and hungry?
Ms. Leichliter, I think we’re already starting to see some of this happening in the U.S. Those who are poor will never have solar power and electric cars, but there are poor families in the U.S. who don’t have electricity or a gas-powered car–so they’ll continue to trudge along finding happiness where they can and not expecting much of anything. Those who were just making ends meet, and those who make enough money to make ends meet plus put away a little of it in savings and towards a close-to-home short vacation will suffer the most, as they will not have the money to pay for products that will supposedly slow down (but not stop) climate change. Those families who are making not only enough money to afford a nice (but not luxurious) home in a relatively crime-free neighborhood could very easily acquire a large debt that will take them years to pay off if they invest in electric cars, solar power, etc. In addition, these families may jeopardize their retirement savings and investments if they purchase “earth-friendly” products. It is only the very well-off and the wealthy who will not be negatively affected by purchasing all the latest anti-climate change products. And if we think that we can remain financially secure by counting on government incentives to help us pay for our anti-climate change products–well, I think that’s probably not likely to happen, and if it does, it will be paid for by raising taxes. I personally think that the fabulously wealthy folks who are convinced of the danger of impending climate change should personally fund the anti-climate change products for all the rest of us in order to halt the doom of Planet Earth!
“The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States.”
Put me in the “consternation” category.
The pope has said in the past that he is no theologian. Would that he also say that he is no scientist (also that he has no vaccine medical knowledge, but that is another topic).
The article also asks, “How Do America’s Catholics Feel About Climate Change?” (Interesting that the question is “Feel” rather than “Think”). As Brineyman put it so well in the post above, facts are facts, and how you feel about them doesn’t change them.
Dr. Kevin Roberts has some worthwhile things to say.
Susan Vorlamoft not so much. She says, “Pope Francis knows what he is talking about…he understands the science.” I don’t think I will comment on that.
The comments above state the indisputable facts that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is ignorant of theology, climatology, heliology, science, engineering, interior design, fly fishing, orchidology, ventriloquism, coal power, wind power, and medicine, to name only a few. Yet this man claims he is authoritatively pronouncing “magisterial” statements on unsubstantiated and hotly contested scientific hypotheses that require “the religious submission of mind and will” of all Catholics and, he claims, that bind all Catholics under the pain of sin. Yet those who merely raise the question of whether he is really a pope are regarded as schismatics and domestic terrorists.
I cannot wait to read Bergoglio’s forthcoming treatise on bathroom etiquette, “De Modo Cacandi.”
For those CWR readers seeking a cure for insomnia, a six-point comment from yours truly on a related article posted on December 2:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/12/02/pope-francis-to-cop28-environmental-destruction-is-an-offense-against-god/
Pope Francis has one job which he either neglects or abuses. He has no expertise in meteorology. Pope Francis need take a year off and reflect upon what he is perpetrating upon the faithful. The Chair of St. Peter is to be the locus of unity, not the eye of a storm of error.
Not sure of the point of this long article (which I didn’t read).
Who doesn’t already know that Pope Francis is not a scientist but doesn’t let that interfere with his pontificating?
I skipped to the comments.