Pope takes sides in a science debate

Darth Omar said:
“All of us have a responsibility, all of us, small or large, a moral responsibility. We have to take it seriously. We can’t joke about it,” he said. “Each person has their own. Even politicians have their own.”

Ahead of the Paris summit in 2015, Francis wrote a major encyclical, or papal letter, on the care of the environment which backed the gradual elimination of fossil fuels to stem global warming.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...a82b&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
________________

Shouldn't the Pope be preaching about Christianity? Or if he wants to delve into politics, radical Islam has committed genocide on Christians in parts of the Middle East. Why not comment on that?

The AGW debate is fundamentally about climate science and not politics or morality. I presume Francis' background is in theology and not atmospheric physics.

His is just an opinion---and it's no better than mine.
Click to expand...

If his opinion's no better than yours than what's your beef? Shouldn't a nurse be talking about medical issues rather than AGW?
 
Celticguy said:
His statement on this was from the chair.
Click to expand...

This isn't a doctrine of Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is – apart from canonizations of saints – extremely rare. And those are usually regarded as not of divine faith, as they depend on facts that post-date New Testament revelation.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium.[SUP][71][/SUP] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.
 
Last edited:
aloysious said:
Did he co-author a peer reviewed paper and get it published it in a Catholic journal?
Click to expand...

It's tragic when hypocrites think they can trick our Father in Heaven by deciding that the parts of Scripture they find pleasing are the valid parts and the others can be safely ignored.

It's even sadder when they apply their own situational morality to their use of the Scriptures. If a Scripture is convenient for them one day, they cite it. If it's not the next day, they ignore it, or pretend it's irrelevant.
 
christiefan915 said:
Did you? Why is it such a big deal that he offered an opinion? He does have a science background.
Click to expand...


Oh, really?

Pope Francis' formal scientific education did not proceed beyond his Chemical Technician training.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/03/12/pope-francis-scientist-2/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Is there any lie you won't spew, you shameless daughter of perdition?

Repent, before it's too late. I beg you.
 
God bless America said:
It's tragic when hypocrites think they can trick our Father in Heaven by deciding that the parts of Scripture they find pleasing are the valid parts and the others can be safely ignored.

It's even sadder when they apply their own situational morality to their use of the Scriptures. If a Scripture is convenient for them one day, they cite it. If it's not the next day, they ignore it, or pretend it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You nailed religious fundamentalism.
 
I agree with you on the ISIS part. However, I don't have a problem with a religious figure promoting environmental issues. I think they can be morally equated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top