Image 01 Image 03

The People’s Pope or the Political Pope?

The People’s Pope or the Political Pope?

“Pope Francis: Before one can know what is moral, he must know what is true”.

Pope Francis has accomplished something that is truly miraculous in this country: He has managed to bump Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton from the spotlight for a brief time.

For that, I am truly grateful.

I have been mulling over my thoughts about the Pope’s American tour and his various statements, and I have come to the conclusion I need to view him like I view my local priest: I will listen politely, avoid getting emotionally attached, and do what my own conscience (after prayerful reflection) dictates.

When I became Catholic in 2010, my sponsor warned me about getting emotionally attached to any priest. Why? Priests tend to move around quite a bit, but every one of them has something to teach you. I must admit, I’m getting quite a lesson in expectation setting and patience.

Pope Francis is the first pontiff installed since I joined the church, so in that way, he is special to me. I must admit, I caught “Francis Fever”. Given his humility and sincerity, it was hard not to be moved.

However, after very learned and respected scientists were thwarted in a respectful attempt to counter the inanity used as the basis for the papal climate change encyclical, my fever chilled considerably. Ashley McGuire, a conservative who is senior fellow with The Catholic Foundation, says she adores the Pope because he “encourages debate”. Frankly, turning a deaf ear to rational scientists with opposing data is the exact opposite.

During his address at the White House, Pope Francis made a very political move — invoking an iconic American (Martin Luther King, Jr.) and pressing his own climate change agenda. And, with that statement, he essentially gave the environmental activists and President Obama the blessing and the “moral authority” to create burdensome regulations that will increase energy costs. The result will be more poverty and more hardship for the very people Pope Francis wants to help.

Dr. Craig D. Idso, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, addresses this poor science behind the pontiff’s climate change agenda brilliantly in, “Pope Francis: Before one can know what is moral, he must know what is true”.

This morning, in remarks presented at the White House, Pope Francis commenced his U.S. tour by proclaiming “climate change is a problem that can no longer be left to a future generation,” thereafter complimenting the Obama Administration for the policy prescription it advocates in addressing the issue (i.e., reducing CO2 emissions).

However, as noted in my Federalist piece, neither the Pope’s concerns, nor the Administration’s alarms, over potential global warming are based upon the best available science. The biosphere is not spiraling downward toward planetary Armageddon and policies designed to deal with the subject are, quite frankly, nothing more than a recipe for social and economic disorder and disaster. And in support of this position, our Center is releasing today a massive new report exposing the pathetic house of cards upon which the entire global warming movement is founded — global climate model predictions.

The new report, titled Mathematical Models vs. Real-World Data: Which Best Predicts Earth’s Climatic Future?, presents a thorough and careful scrutiny of hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications evaluating the accuracy and capability of climate models to simulate the response of a number of important climatic phenomena to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In short, this treatise provides the proverbial look under the hood of the inner workings of today’s state-of-the-art climate models that provide the basis for both the Pope’s and the Obama Administration’s belief that global warming is a problem and that something must be done about it. And that “look” is not encouraging.

I would argue that, despite his claims of not being a leftist, that Pope Francis at least has a trait common to progressives everywhere: Misguided compassion. Interestingly, misguided compassion was called the “reigning sin of our time” by Mother Angelica, the plucky founder of the EWTN Global Catholic Network.

Catholic author, John Zmirak, covered the topic in his excellent book, “The Bad Catholic’s Guide to the Seven Deadly Sins.” In a nutshell, it is going forward to with actions that enable sin — but convincing yourself that you are doing the right thing anyway, despite evidence to the contrary.

Misguided compassion, as it relates to climate change, is now forcing Americans to live in “energy poverty.”

“EPA regulations such as the new carbon rule are driving prices higher and the next wave of cost increases looms on the horizon (ozone standards in December could be the most expensive in history). “Energy poverty” mounts as the U.S. population grows by over three million people a year. Stories abound for the ongoing lag in U.S. disposable income (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014), and inequality is the worst its been since the “Great Depression.” The purported health benefits of policies that admittedly increase the cost of prerequisite energy such as electricity are dubious because “wealth is health.” Your instinct is right, the best and most measurable benefits for American health center on us having more money.”

Energy poverty isn’t be confined to America, either.

The pontiff is being hailed as the “People’s Pope.” The love and adoration of the crowds is heart-warming, indeed.

But in his role of “Political Pope,” I will give the pontiff the same treatment I gave my very liberal priest when he read Maya Angelou passages during homilies: I will say a mental, “Hail Mary,” and go forward promoting sensible public policy on sound science. I will also fully embrace the beauty, pageantry, and glory of the Holy Mass.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Pope needs to shut up and go away. Haven’t heard anything about religion from him. Only political talk. He’s no religious leader. He’s a political hack.

Maybe he should stick to saving souls.

The moral axioms are individual dignity and intrinsic value.

The natural order establishes certain fitness imperatives.

Go forth and reconcile.

That said, since when has the pro-choice/abortion/congruence/class cult paid heed to one of God’s spokesmen?

For cult members there is only money, sex, ego, and a green backyard.

As for science, it is a philosophy necessarily constrained by the chaotic order of the system and processes to a limited frame of reference. Climate science dwells in the conflationary zone, where circumstance, correlation, estimate, consensus, and inference establish a convergence of logical domains.

It sounds like a cult.

“Before one can know what is moral, he must know what is true.”

That may be one of the most sublime statements ever made. If you depart from the latter proposition, you cannot arrive at the former, regardless of whatever else you may try.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | September 24, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Or at least you can’t arrive at the former except by accident. There are times when correct conclusions are drawn in spite of their emission from mistaken arguments and false “facts.” Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

    I sometimes find myself in disagreement with a proponent’s arguments, because I believe them wrong, even though they lead to what I consider a correct conclusion. (E.g., agreeing with a pro-Second Amendment and anti-gun control stance based on the argument that the Second Amendment protects our right to firearms for hunting. I would agree with the conclusion, but criticize the argument as incorrect. In my mind, that argument doesn’t lead to that conclusion, as well as being historically wrong. But the presenter of the argument is still proposing a conclusion I can agree with.)

      Ragspierre in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 24, 2015 at 5:14 pm

      “I would agree with the conclusion, but criticize the argument as incorrect.”

      Two or three things…

      1. you are confusing a moral conviction with a valid (or invalid) logical argument

      2. you don’t arrive at a valid conclusion by way of false predicates

      3. here, you simply accept the false (invalid) conclusion of your interlocutor because it conforms (sorta) with your position.

    There is much wisdom in this statement. The difficulty lies in discerning what is “truth.” Is government the final arbiter of truth or is man’s conscience? When is it ever proper for the government to call the “game over” and decree that the “science is settled”?

    Perhaps the search for truth should be left to man and not to government, especially when the government gives away millions to pseudo-scientists who are nothing by whores, in order to purchase the “truth” that government seeks.

“However, after very learned and respected scientists were thwarted in a respectful attempt to counter the inanity used as the basis for the papal climate change encyclical, my fever chilled considerably. Ashley McGuire, a conservative who is senior fellow with The Catholic Foundation, says she adores the Pope because he “encourages debate”. Frankly, turning a deaf ear to rational scientists with opposing data is the exact opposite.”

Why would expect otherwise from the most potent and consistent denier or science in the history of the Western world, the Roman Catholic Church?

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 24, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    Your are misinformed. There have been a great many priests who were noted scientists. The Jesuits are especially proud of their order’s contributions to science over the centuries.

      “Your are misinformed”

      You know nothing of history.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | September 25, 2015 at 10:52 am

        On the contrary, NC Mountain Girl is correct. The Roman church has promoted science throughout its history, and its anti-science reputation in Protestant countries is a very recent invention.

        To forestall the usual arguments: Bruno was not a scientist at all, and all the Church ever wanted from Galileo was for him to confine his pronouncements to what the science of the time could support, and to clearly label his unsupported hypotheses as such.

        (And the reason the Jesuits declined to support Galileo was because of his unscientific, pig-headed attack on Fr Orazio Grassi over the comets of 1618. Grassi had actually observed them, and reported accurately on his observations, while Galileo had not seen them and yet felt so sure of his theories that he took it on himself to dismiss Grassi’s observations. That is not science, and that’s why the Jesuits saw him as a pseudo-scientific showman and didn’t defend him. Of course as we all know Grassi was 100% right and Galileo was 100% wrong, but somehow that doesn’t make it into the popular histories.)

        There’s a reason the “Catholics v Science” narrative always trots out Galileo; there isn’t anyone else. He’s the closest they’ve got to a martyr, and he’s not a good one. That’s why the next name trotted out is Bruno, and there isn’t any third name. Bruno was a pagan nut, who was burned for his pagan nuttery, not for anything to do with science, which he knew nothing about.

Good post.

The pope has lost me with the climate change leftist lie propaganda push.

Pray for him.

Noblesse Oblige | September 24, 2015 at 6:12 pm

It is worse than the global warming garbage that he peddles. Today he decried the idea of good and evil, arguing that there is a vast “in between.” Call this moral relativism. So much for 2000 years of Church teachings.

Well, for entirely different reasons I’m also infallible, and let me tell you, it goes to a feller’s head.

I see him more as the “please everyone pope”, which seems what he is trying to do. The problem is that you can’t have any real convictions and please everyone.

I’ve heard it said that infallibility also makes one celibate. Or, is that ED?

If that is your case, Henry, maybe a change of climate would help.

The Pope is pushing man made climate change right now. Send him $19.99 and he will send you a copy of his man made climate encyclical and one free copy. Only pay for S&H. That would perk your infallibility right up.

David R. Graham | September 24, 2015 at 10:09 pm

Good post title, thoughtful post. The Anglican, Protestant and Reformed wings of the Latin Church went environmentalist and pacifist in the 1960s. That is when they conceived government, specifically Five Eyes governments, as embodiment of the Church, obliged to compel from taxpayers cradle-to-grave support for cheats and idlers (“the poor,” the “precarious”)

IOW, clergy went worldly. Now Roman Catholic prelates world-wide, follow their Anglican, Protestant and Reformed “separated brethren” into venality:

German prelates receive taxpayer monies in abundance from the German Reich, The Diocese of Cologne alone receives more German taxpayer money than the Vatican has!

Today Pope Francis spoke at the USA as if it were part of the Nation State government he heads. Consistent with ancient Roman Catholic doctrine, he spoke as the Chief Executive/Representative of Christ for the unitary Global Government (“… all things in heaven and on earth ….”) as which the Vatican sees the Church and itself.

There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy, in Vatican doctrine, as between calling for USA open borders (i.e., non-sovereignty) and Vatican closed borders (i.e., the sole center of the sole global sovereignty, the Church). USA is a province of the Vatican. Only the Vatican inner-core, Vatican City, needs physical protection as the sovereign center of its global aegis and property. Walls, restrictive immigration, etc. Absolutely consistent with open borders, no wall, everywhere else.

Caliphists make the same claim for a different actor, whomever is their chosen god.

Mr. Francis, Sir, a nation state is a sovereign entity. The Church is not one of them.

David R. Graham | September 24, 2015 at 10:19 pm

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops receives from the USA executive branch millions if not billions of taxpayer monies yearly to “settle” refugees, migrants and terrorists in the USA. It’s a business and they are businessmen, not clergy. Baptists and virtually every other *mainline* denomination’s clergy ditto:

And taxpayers want to admire these tergiversators and termagants?

I’d prefer that Francis stick to concerns of his religion and stay out of politics. He’s led a sheltered life for decades and is out of touch inside his walled-up treasure bin.

The pope means very little to me as an agnostic. Even when I was raised in Christian values, I didn’t see the point of this “man” who was supreme and heralded from an archaic position that includes such benevolent pursuits as inquisitions, indulgences, and excommunications.

That said, I find the liberal position so telling here. They are so busy rooting out hypocrisy that they fail to see their own. They haven’t cared about a thing the pope has said for decades but now that his beliefs align with the cult of progressive agendas they are suddenly interested. Who’s the hypocrite?

The pope has been corrupted.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Fen. | September 25, 2015 at 7:13 am

    Flawed premise.

    The Bishop of Rome is a man. All men are corrupt. This bishop is less interested in the way of the cross so his corruption is mire evident.

It certainly appears to me that Pope Francis is acting just like one of our liberal Supreme Court Justices but doing so within the context of his world’s “Supreme Court”.

Has anyone heard Pope Francis mention the horrific Iran deal, Barack Obama’s obeisance to the anti-Christ Iranian Mullahs? Pastor Saeed Abedini? Or, the persecuted Christians in China?

It appears not. Instead “Climate change” scientism is the more populist and more heart-warming approach for this Pope. This way the first social-media Pope can connect and endear himself to the lost sheep Millennials. And by talking bogus science and meeting these kids were they live-in the swamp waters of social media-he thinks he can get them to realize that there is something more to life-like being a good materialist neighbor like STATE Farm.

As we are told by our betters including His eminence, “Climate Change” is an immediate “problem” (compared to the proven mass destruction of nuclear weapons already existing).

“Climate Change” is made out to be more of a threat than enriching uranium for nuclear warhead ends. Wow, the Pope is channeling the spirit of AlGore and not the Spirit of God.

Now, one would think that this Pope would pen a nuclear war encyclical decrying nuclear aggression among mankind. But no…..Instead, Pope Francis pens a paean to Mother Gaia (who, like Mary and the many early pagan “Venus” deities receive/d veneration).

Did the Pope really decry the idea of good and evil, arguing that there is a vast “in between”?

The synthesis of good and evil is exactly where we are at in this culture-a vast chasm of nihilism and dystopia.

There is good and there is evil: God-given evolved fossil fuels and the “Climate change” denunciation of fossil fuels; “Love your neighbor as yourself” and abortion; “Love your neighbor as yourself” and a U.S. president who promotes race and class warfare; “Speaking the truth in love” and a PC culture; “Be fruitful and multiply” and homosexual “marriage”. C’mon.

A lack of moral courage coupled with non-judgmental moral relativism and a dearth of critical thinking has created an “anything goes” culture (w/SCOTUS responding in kind).

The Pope appears to be fostering the decline of America as much as Obama and the Progressives. I have received nothing of value from his words. He could have stayed home.

The Church of Rome has had many bad bishops in the past. This present Bishop of Rome is one of the bad ones. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s careless of Christian doctrine, careful of political issues, and, one doubts whether he is even Christian at all. So, we have a bad bishop weakening his church at a time when America is weak and Muslims are invading Europe. None of this bodes well for the days ahead. I expect a falling away in this country of those belonging to the Church of Rome. If the numbers are high enough, Bishop Francis can be forced to resign.