Rick Santorum's environmental "theology"

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654...

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Complete-John-Houghton/dp/052170916...

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Choice-Solve-Climate-Crisis/dp/1594867348/ref=...

http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al-Gore/dp/B000ICL3KG/ref=sr_1_...

http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/...

Okay. Let's put climate change aside (because yes, scientifically, it's much harder to conclude the "human link", given the cutoff in historical data tracking, and the numerous variables). Let's just talk environment in general: because environmentalism isn't "Climate Change". Climate Change is only one facet on a complex, dynamic, and interconnected environmental system - more established threats to our survival include water pollution, air pollution, habitat destruction, species extinction, overpopulation, food contamination, genetic modification of our food supply. The food chain to sustaining our seafood is in critical danger; honeybees, which pollinate 30% of our fruits and vegetables are disappearing. I could go on forever, but you get the gist . . .

Yes, if survival requires making SOME sacrifices, or changing SOME parts of our lifestyle, practicality says yes. As does our morality. As does our faith, which the Pope has laid our quite articulately. We were made stewards of this planet. It is our responsibility to protect it, and to preserve it, and to honor it. NOT as a God, but as a incredible creation of God's brilliance, and the finest gift God could have bestowed upon us. Our survival, our morality, and our faith dictates that there are more important things than our comfort and reluctance to changing with the times. Everyone on this planet matters. As our the resources and the beauty of this planet. It doesn't mean we can't use its resources. But we can't continue guzzling 25% of the world's oil supply. We need to be "conservatives" - consuming only what we need, and learning how to use the resources we already have, and prioritizing.

I don't think it's nonsense to deny ourselves for the common good. I think self denial has always been a part of our religion. I think we must use our intelligence to try to conserve our dwindling natural resources. We must find peaceful means of limiting population growth, also.

Unfortunately I am unable to control myself and cannot fight the temptation of correcting such bias religious views. The consensus, 99% of scientist agree, 'GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE' (as opposed to global warming) is slowly creeping upon us and certainly we are the main contributors. If we are to look at G-d's world, the 'good shepherds' are not taking care of or [raising their world right{reword]. Coral reefs are dying; the arctic is, on average, a minute, yet truly substantial degree or two higher; and the extinction rate is 1000 times larger than what should be (1-5 ext. every 1000 years is normal) with the exception of those who don't look past 5000 some years of earth's existence.

thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Toby M.F.

Unfortunately Rick Santorum doesn't know if Christ was crucified or died at the Alamo.

Would those have been seven earth days back when the earth was the center of the universe? There is no such thing as a day in space. What would God be using to measure it? I suppose the bishops didn't contradict him.

Rick does not do what he does to appeal to the evangelicals and far right. Also, I imagine that some evangelicals would be offended by your observation. He really thinks the way he sounds. What would be wrong with Romney? Either way Obama will be reelected. Huntsman would have been the only real threat to that, but normal people don't vote in Republican primaries.

What do you mean, "No messages yet from the pulpit?" The Pope's? He has been quite clear, and strong, about our responsibility for protecting the planet, both in consideration for the human race, now and tomorrow, and as our moral responsibility. That's what I don't understand about people explaining Santorum's "environmental policy". If he was, in fact, saying "environmentalism is good, but our approach is detrimental", that would be one thing. But where is he messaging that. If anything, his statements contradict Pope Benedict's speech in 2008.

Andrew shares: "What I don't appreciate from this article is . . ."

Andrew, you say this about every article on NCR, as if reading them.

Why use your time in this way?

Life is short.

People already know where you are coming form, and pass over your comments.

In any case, I do spend time outside the USA and reading and watching media frmo outside the USA, and world-wide people are VERY VERY concerned about how our planet, the one we all share, is going into the toilet so Americans can drive SUV's to eat burgers at the mall.

Seen that photo of the guy standing on one small spot of earth surrounded by sea, all that is left of his low laying island now submerged due to the rise of the oceans?

Andrew, you can have him. I want no parts of that neo-con, war mongering, throw the poor under the bus clown.

Your comments belie a particular belief that is quite faulty. You criticize the "notion" that "industrialization is the primary cause of climate change as believed by this administration, thus giving justification for actions and policies that stifle economic growth and/or curtail production." First, most economists would gladly argue your criticism/supposition with you. Your knowledge of the environmental sciences is clearly limited as well. But, my point is that you hold the attitude that an increase in production and economic growth as being above all other considerations. Sure, and this sort of thinking is the same that resulted in the economic collapse of 2008: that profit trumps the human misery that can result when it is done irresponsibly. How difficult it must be for you to live in a world where science is teaching as ever more about our relationship to the earth - indeed, the universe. I would suppose you prefer bloodletting to antibiotics? I would also suggest that you don't try and eat those energy-saving bulbs with mercury in them. Your appreciation of Santorum does not earn you any stars outside of a small fraction of the extreme right, as his positions (and sometimes I wonder if he is really serious about some of what he says or is just playing to the audience of the moment) are often devoid of any serious thought or real knowledge.

Maybe I missed something he said, but how are you interpreting all that. Had he said something as clear-headed and articulate as what you posted, that would be a different story. But that's not what he said - he was backtracking from a dangerous dismissal of Obama's "faith" - which crosses a line even with his base - and re-spun "phony theology" as meaning environmentalism. And his beliefs were pretty explicit - that the Earth is ours to do with as we please, and that protecting the earth or treating it as anything above a subservient ball of raw materials is a phony ideology. Yet he is challenging the Pope when he says that.

yeah, and when we stop making nuclear weapons lots of folks go out of work, too, like when we stop abortions?

I submit that Santorum is not a Roman Catholic by any measure that even a Traditionalist would find familiar.

* Biblical inerrancy has never been a part of Catholic dogma. In fact, it was specifically excluded. He believes in it.
* Environmentalism has been embraced by the Pope and his bishops for most of my life. He is against environmentalism in the form of regulation, or even care for the earth. His interpretation of Genesis is extreme and not accepted from the point of view of even the majority of Traditionalist Catholics.
* A preferential option for the poor has been a mandate since John Paul II (formally), but even before. Santorum disdains the concept vocally.
* The Church is (today) against the death penalty. Santorum upholds it.
* Even his views on women are outside of the mainstream of the majority of the bishops and traditionalists.
* The Church has been opposed to war in the Middle East and has spoken out against it. Santorum has come out in favor of attacking Iran.

So what gives, @Laurie? If one calls a Liberal Catholic "not a Catholic" because he or she disagrees with the bishops on birth control, or whatever, should not Santorum be called out on his dissident views? Or is trashing of dissidents limited to trashing liberal Catholics? Seriously... That is a serious question.

It really bothers me that we can have all kinds of sensation about Gov. Cuomo -- including one bishop's intention to deny him communion -- for his views on birth control and abortion as well as his partnership state and his views on gay marriage, but there is NOT A PEEP about these VERY important non-Catholic (of any description) positions that Santorum has taken. Santorum is NOT a real Catholic by the measure that his views do not reflect those of the Church. Do his extreme positions on birth control, abortion, and LGBT persons trump everything else? If that is the case, then the bishops have a LOT of explaining to do.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... If Traditionalists wish to call Liberals to tasks for their beliefs, they should call those like Santorum to task as well. That would be true to the spirit and meaning of the Church's law as seen from a Traditional point of view.

--Andy Jo--

We don't read this the same way. How do you explain the glaciers melting just as predicted? Just lucky coincidence?