Trump and the Paris Climate Accord

 President Donald Trump has announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the 2015 Paris climate agreement and blogger Mark Shea has unleashed a firestorm of anti-Trump vitriol. In Shea's opinion, by his withdrawal from the agreement, Trump has flipped off Pope Francis and now, "Trumpian Catholics" are cheering.

I wanted to leave a comment on Shea's post, but as I've been banned from commenting on his blog, [twice, actually] I have to address his post here.

First of all, as I've said time and again, I did not vote for Donald Trump and I wish someone else (other than Hillary Clinton) had won instead. Secondly, I support Pope Francis. In a battle between Trump and the Pope, the Pope wins every time. Thirdly, although I see the discussion over climate change as more political than scientific, I lean on the side that maintains that the planet is warming and human activity contributes to that warming.

With all that being said, I find all the weeping and moaning over the Paris climate agreement withdrawal ridiculous.

Trump supporters claim withdrawing from the accord will make America Great Again. The anti-Trumpers says Trump's action will destroy the planet. Both sides are full of the organic matter I spread on my garden.

I've read the Paris agreement (found as a pdf thanks to NPR) and it is, as Hillary Clinton might say, the "biggest nothing burger, ever."

As an aside, thanks to Hillary, we can now dispense with phrase "nothing burger" from this point forward.

My reasons for being against the Paris agreement are the opposite of Trump's. Trump doesn't believe in climate change, probably hasn't read the agreement - but believes signing it hurts Americans.

I, on the other hand, believe in the science behind climate change, I have read the agreement and believe the accord to be 31 pages of useless crap. Like everything thing else Liberals support, it is a useless document written to make people believe they are accomplishing something when they aren't actually doing squat.

A Return to 'Creative Minority Report'

A year and a half ago, I wrote a post proclaiming that there would be no more 'Creative Monrity Report' for me. At the time of that post, I felt that, although I was still a fan of Matt Archbold's portion, I began to see Pat Archbold as being too anti-Pope Francis for me. I stopped reading their blog at that point.

Since then, I've returned to the blog and have even added a link to CMR onto my blog. I can't remember the exact date of my return, but I felt I should post this update.

Pope Francis: Women Will Be Banned From Priesthood Forever

Some folks just won't take 'no' for an answer.

In 1994, Pope John Paul II wrote in an apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women". and "priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone".

Now, hoping that Pope Francis will contradict Saint Pope John Paul II, a Swedish journalist asked the Pope whether it was realistic to think that there might be female priests in the next few decades.

According to reports, Francis responded, "On the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the last word is clear."
"It was given by St. John Paul II, and this remains," Francis said.

Still, the Swedish journalist asked, "Really? Never?"

How many times does it have to be spelled out?

No female priests in the Catholic Church. You don't like it? Become a Protestant. That's pretty simple.

A Few Thoughts on the Anti-Catholic Bigotry in American Politics

It what was clearly a display of anti-Catholic bigotry, the lede posted on Drudge Report claimed that Pope Francis "mocks America 2016". The lede went on to say that America, "Does not have much political culture"

Even without reading the article linked to, the idea that America "Does not have much political culture" hardly seems to be mockery. Upon reading the actual story, we find that Pope Francis "advised U.S. Catholics who feel they are torn between two imperfect candidates for president to study and pray before they vote and to make sure to follow their conscience".

The article quotes the pope as saying, "You have asked me a question that describes a difficult choice because, according to you, there are difficulties with one and difficulties with the other." That's certainly true, and I'm sure every thoughtful, non biased American would agree.

Drudge is probably upset that Pope Francis did not openly slam Hillary and endorse Trump.

Unfortunately, the Right in the U.S. is overtly anti-Catholic. Of course, the American Left is equally bigoted toward the Catholic Church, although the reasons for their bigotry is different. The United States was founded on Protestantism; the Liberal, political side is heavily influenced by Anglicanism while the more Conservative pols have an Evangelical fringe element.

Faithful Catholics have little opportunity in American politics. If a Catholic wants to succeed in politics, he or she must abandon the Church. Sadly, there's plenty of those types of Catholics in the Democrat Party, as Hillary's vice-presidential pick demonstrates.

Pope Francis says Destroying the Planet is a Sin

Whenever we get reports on the things famous people said or did, we can always tell before reading the report if the story will have a positive or negative spin by the accompanying photo of the person in question. Each one of us has good and bad photographic moments.....some photos are unattractive, no matter how you may look in "real life", and it's easy enough to search the Internet and find a less than flattering photo of anyone we don't agree with.

Judging by the photo used by Breitbart for it's recent report on Pope Francis' message for the "World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation" I knew immediately that the editors were none too pleased with the Pope's comments on climate change and global warming.

For the most part, the writer of the article, Thomas D Williams accurately reported Francis' comments, but it was the accompanying photo, and the dismissive lede - Pope Francis: Global Warming a ‘Sin,’ Man Can Atone by Recycling and ‘Car-Pooling’ - whereby Williams displayed his passive-aggressive attitude toward the Pope's comments.

Williams attempted to dismiss everything the Pope said with his final sentence in the article, "Apparently the Pontiff's words have already been heard, since scientists are now forecasting that 2017 will be a cooler year than 2016".

Apparently Williams failed to read the entire Business Insider article he linked to. Climate scientists are indeed forecasting that the heat may not be quite as bad in 2017 due to the cyclical fading of El Niño. Those scientists do not deny climate change and note that there was no sign of a strong La Niña, El Niño's opposite that can cool the planet.

On a positive note, William's article does link to Pope Francis' message as shared by Vatican website. It would behoove us all to read the Pope's message and give prayerful consideration to it.

Pope Francis' Most Recent Trip.

In a story from April 7, The Guardian had speculated that Pope Francis' trip to the Greek island of Lesbos was to be a show of support for refugees and would be aimed at drawing attention to the front line of Europe’s migration crisis.

As it turns out, the Guardian was right, this time.

The media (including the Catholic blogosphere) loves putting their own spin on everything this Pope says or does and I'm surprised that no one has speculated that Francis' trip to Lesbos was his way of showing support of women priests and same sex so-called "marriage".

Bernie Sanders at the Vatican

It is not without a bit of irony that Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders was the only U.S. Presidential candidate invited to speak at a conference at the Vatican,hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to mark the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Centesimus Annus.

Sanders' "reflection" can be found on his website.

Having read Sanders' speech, I have to say that there is little, if anything, that I can disagree with Sanders on in his speech. There are areas where his worldview actually aligns (in a limited way) with Catholic teaching.

Sanders says:

"In the year 2016, the top one percent of the people on this planet own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, while the wealthiest 60 people – 60 people – own more than the bottom half – 3 1/2 billion people. At a time when so few have so much, and so many have so little, we must reject the foundations of this contemporary economy as immoral and unsustainable."

Sanders misses the mark in many areas, however. The encyclical, which the conference was commemorating, was itself, a commemoration of Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII praises private property and condemns Socialism.

There may be ideas in Centesimus Annus which are appealing to Bernie Sanders, but he ignores one in particular:

"Now, as then, we need to repeat that there can be no genuine solution of the 'social question' apart from the Gospel, and that the 'new things' can find in the Gospel the context for their correct understanding and the proper moral perspective for judgment on them."

I don't have the answer as to how we eliminate poverty and income inequality. I'm sure it can't be achieved without some governmental intervention. The question is how much governmental intervention is necessary and at what point does governmental intervention make the situation worse?

I'm certainly willing to give Sanders' economic ideas a look-see, but I could never support him outright due his views on abortion and same sex so-called "marriage".

The Press Misunderstands Pope Francis. What Else is New?

Recently, Bernie Sanders announced that he had received an invitation to speak at a small, invitation-only scholarly conference at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
Of course, that's not exactly right. Sanders has led us to believe that he would be speaking to Pope Francis. He was neither invited by the Pope, nor will the Pope be attending the conference. It is highly unlikely that the two will even be in the same room together - much less have a conversation.

Now, we have a number of opinion writers telling us just how much Mr Sanders and Pope Francis have in common.

Kathleen Parker believes the two might share a similar worldview, and Brent Budowsky maintains that Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis Stand Together on quite a few things.

First, let me state the obvious.Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis are worlds apart on the issues of abortion and same sex so-called "marriage". There's no point in even going there.

Folks like Parker and Budowsky want to put the two together because both speak out on matters of economic equality, social justice, combating poverty and human rights. Earth to Parker and Budowsky: Sanders and the Pope may agree on the problems, but not the solutions.

Socialism is not the only system fighting inequality and poverty.

According to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia Socialism is defined as -

"A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life. 

The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth. Nor is mere revolt against economic inequality Socialism: it may be Anarchism (see ANARCHY); it may be mere Utopianism (see COMMUNISM); it may be a just resistance to oppression. Nor is it merely a proposal to make such economic changes in the social structure as would banish poverty. Socialism is this (see COLLECTIVISM) and much more. 

It is also a philosophy of social life and action, regarding all human activities from a definite economic standpoint. Moreover modern Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building, but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the existing social conditions, which are regarded as intolerable. 

The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community, have been the cause and still are the stimulus of what is called the Socialistic movement. But, in order to understand fully what Socialism is and what it implies, it is necessary first to glance at the history of the movement, then to examine its philosophical and religious tendencies, and finally to consider how far these may be, and actually have proved to be, incompatible with Christian thought and life."


True Socialism calls for the abolition of private property, and is in opposition to the teachings of the Church.

Every Pope since Pius IX has written and spoken out against the evils of Socialism.

Sanders isn't a religious Holy Man because he is against oppression, poverty and inequality. We are all against those things. It's the methods and solutions Sanders presents that are questionable. More government control is not the answer and I don't believe I've heard Pope Francis call for that.

An Early Thought on "Amoris Laetitia".

I mentioned in an earlier post that, in addition to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's, The Gulag Archipelago, I was simultaneously reading other books. I'm still in the Gulag, so to speak, but I'm also alternating it with The Son of Tarzan by Edgar Rice Burroughs and Studies In Wives by Marie Adelaide Belloc Lowndes.

Now, as if I don't have enough to read, Pope Francis has released an apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia ,which I've already downloaded, converted to mobi and begun reading on Kindle.

Like Catholic blogger, LarryD, I will most definitely follow paragraph 7 of the exhortation :

"Given the rich fruits of the two-year Synod process, this Exhortation will treat, in different ways, a wide variety of questions. This explains its inevitable length. Consequently, I do not recommend a rushed reading of the text. The greatest benefit, for families themselves and for those engaged in the family apostolate, will come if each part is read patiently and carefully, or if at­tention is paid to the parts dealing with their spe­cific needs. It is likely, for example, that married couples will be more concerned with Chapters Four and Five, and pastoral ministers with Chap­ter Six, while everyone should feel challenged by Chapter Eight. It is my hope that, in reading this text, all will feel called to love and cherish family life, for 'families are not a problem; they are first and foremost an opportunity' ".

This work does need to be read carefully, yet already there are many on both sides of the cultural battleground firing shots at Amoris Laetitia. There has not been nearly enough time, since the release of the document, for anyone to have read it carefully and objectively. I've read portions of it and have yet to come upon anything that warrants the criticism leveled against it.

I'm not going to link to any of these negative articles. They can be found easily enough without my help.

The only comment I will make at this time is that the more I see of this Pope, the more I like and admire him.

Pope Francis' Popularity in U.S. Drops.

According to a recent Gallup poll, Pope Francis' favorable rating drops in U.S..

The New York Post is reporting that US support for Pope Francis plummets. Politico says Pope Francis' approval rating nosedives among conservatives, while one news site reports that Pope Francis' approval rating dips in U.S..

At The Washington Post, religion reporter, Michelle Boorstein makes an attempt at explaining why Pope Francis is actually becoming less popular in the U.S.. She gets it partly right.

The answer is pretty simple and straight forward. Pope Francis is being viewed less favorably because the folks in the U.S. - both Liberal and Conservative - are finally realizing that the Pope really is Catholic.

The Liberals looked highly on Pope Francis in the beginning, because for some insane reason, they expected him to abandon Church teachings on married priests, same sex "marriage", and women in the priesthood. I'm sure some even believed he would eventually allow "married" gay and lesbian and transgender priests.

Conservatives are unhappy with the Pope because he expresses Catholic views on the environment, materialism and greed.

The Pope speaks the truth and this makes people on the Left and the Right uncomfortable. It's really no more complicated than that.

Pope Francis and the "Hammer and Sickle Crucifix" Update.

It looks as if, no matter what he does - or does not do - Pope Francis will continue to receive grief from the political Right wing.

In a comment left on one of my most recent posts concerning Pope Francis and the hammer and sickle crucifix presented to him by Bolivia dictator, Evo Morales, it was claimed that the Pope actually appreciated the gift,but was leaving the crucifix in Bolivia and presenting it "to a statue of the Our Lady of Copacabana, patron saint of Bolivia".

"Francis accompanied this gesture with the following words: 'The President of the nation was kind enough to offer me two decorative honours on behalf of the Bolivian people. I thank the Bolivian people for their affection and the President for this courteous gesture. I would like to dedicate these two decorations to the patron saint of Bolivia, the Mother of this noble nation, so that she may always remember her people and from Bolivia, from the shrine where I would like them to be, that she may remember the Successor of Peter and the whole Church and look after them from Bolivia.'"

Now, in an editorial piece, Dennis Prager claims the pope himself announced that he was "keeping the hammer and sickle crucifix and taking it home".

We have different sources telling us contradictory stories as to the final home of the hammer and sickle crucifix. They can't agree on it's location, but they agree that Pope Francis really loves the ugly thing because, deep down, he's really a dyed in the wool Marxist.

Our Pope is not a Marxist.

Pope Francis speaks out against "the relentless pursuit of profit" and human lives being sacrificed on the "altar of money."

It doesn't take a communist to see that the world's wealth is not distributed fairly among the people of this planet. The solution to this problem is neither Capitalism nor Socialism. The Church does not endorse either economic system. The Church has no quarrel with the private ownership of property or ethically run businesses.

The economy should be for the benefit of the people, not using people for the benefit of the economy.

No More 'Creative Minority Report' for Me.

There was a time when I considered myself a huge fan of the Brothers Archbold and their blog, Creative Minority Report (CMR). Not so long ago, I became a bit leery of Patrick Archbold's writing, though his brother, Matthew didn't appear as.....how should I put this?........crazy. At one time, both brothers wrote for National Catholic Register in addition to their blog. Patrick has since been fired from the Register.

From how I see it, Pat Archbold began to come off the rails about the time Pope Benedict XVI resigned and Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected - taking the name Pope Francis. I doubt Pope Francis can do anything right in Pat Archbold's eyes.

Archbold's hatred of the current Pope has finally forced me to remove the link to CMR from this blog.

While visiting Bolivia, left-wing Bolivian President Evo Morales attempted to present the Pope with a crucifix sculpted in the shape of a hammer and sickle. Naturally, the crucifix has caused an uproar.

CNN, BBC, catholicnewsagency.com, Fr. Z's Blog,newsbusters.org, and telegraph.co.uk are reporting that Francis "rejected", "rebuked", and "condemned" Morales' gift. Most are reporting that Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi had the final word: "Certainly," he told reporters, "it will not be put in a church."

Creatively Minority Report, however, posted an inflammatory post, rejecting, rebuking and condemning Pope Francis for accepting the crucifix. In his hatred for Pope Francis, Pat Archbold refuses to give the Pope the benefit of any doubt. To Archbold, Francis is a Marxist.......and probably an illegitimate Pope to boot.

This is the last straw. I'm finished with Creative Minority Report.

Update - Jan. 11, 2017:
I've begun reading CMR again. For more on this, read this post.

Progressives Attempt to Divide Conservatives With Laudato Si.

There is no lack of "news" headlines on the Internet attempting to spin the Pope's "climate change" encyclical into a political groove.

From USA Today - Pope's climate change statement a challenge for Republicans.

Desmogblog writes - Republican Presidential Candidates Attack Pope’s Climate Change Encyclical

And from Huffington Post - Right Wing Steamed Over Pope's Climate Change Encyclical

Hoping to divide Republicans, Democrats are overjoyed that GOP Catholics more convinced about climate change than other Republicans.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has even gone so far as to say, "We really must listen to his Holiness as we go forward.".

Are the Democrats ready to embrace Pope Francis and his encyclical, Laudato si completely?

Is Pelosi, fellow CINO John Kerry, and Democrat Presidential favorite, Hillary Clinton ready to accept what is written concerning abortion in Laudato si ?

nationaljournal.com quotes the papal encyclical:

"Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?"

Another bothersome quote for Democrats:

Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of "reproductive health". Yet "while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development." To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.

I've read Pope Francis' latest encyclical and I've found nothing in it that I can object to. I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, so my thoughts on whether the planet is experiencing anthropogenic climate change involves a certain amount of trust in "authorities". I trust Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and their ilk about as far as I can hurl the planet Earth, but I don't put much faith in the scientific views of Rush Limbaugh or Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe either.

Is the Earth warming? If so, is that warming due, in large part to human activity? I have absolutely no proof one way or the other, but I trust Pope Francis more than anyone else speaking on the issue.

Papal Encyclical, 'Laudato si' Available For Download.

Yesterday, Thursday, June 18, 2015 at noon Central European Summer Time (Daylight Saving Time) the Vatican released Pope Francis' second encyclical, Laudato si - On the care for our common home. Translations of the encyclical are available in Arabic, English, French, German,Italian,Polish, Portuguese and Spanish.

Criticism of the encyclical have already appeared on the Internet.

I've begun reading the encyclical, although as I write this, I haven't finished it. Therefore, I will not offer any detailed thoughts on it in this post. I'll only say that, at this point, I haven't come across anything that I would call unreasonable or "disgraceful" or "unjust", as some are referring to it. I have this crazy idea that one should read, study and seriously contemplate Laudato si before evaluating it.

Those interested in reading the encyclical can find it online at the Vatican's website. It can also be read and downloaded as a pdf by going here.

My personal preference is to read books and documents as mobi using, either a Kindle, or a similar app for my android. After downloading the pdf, I went to online-convert.com for the conversion. For those too lazy to go to all the work of converting the pdf to mobi, I've made my copy of the mobi available for download at my website.

I'll finish reading the document and will eventually post further thoughts on the encyclical. Don't expect that post today.

Disgraceful Video Attacks Papal Encyclical.

I almost missed this video; the link to it arrived in an email that was automatically sent to spam.

It's come to the point now that both sides of the climate change issue are making use of scare tactics, relying less on the science and more on whatever it might take to frighten folks.

It this video, the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (ELII) has begun to criticize the Pope's encyclical and the Pope's advisers before the actual release of Laudato si, claiming the encyclical will lead to "European style" energy restrictions which will actually harm the most vulnerable among us. The encyclical is being called "unjust" and  "disgraceful".

The creators of the video steer away from criticizing Pope Francis directly, rather they attack his advisers. Not having read the encyclical - which is due for release later today - I can't comment on the actual substance of the encyclical. I can say, however, that the video is, itself disgraceful and insulting.

Italian Magazine Leaks Papal Encyclical

As I write this, Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change, Laudato Sii has not yet been officially released and an embargo on it's publication remains in effect until Thursday, June 18.

Never the less, an Italian magazine, L’Espresso has posted a leaked draft of the encyclical on line.

Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi has stated that the version posted by L’Espresso is not the final version of the text. The copy is in Italian. So far, no reliable English translation has been published. Of course that hasn't stopped The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times from commenting.

It also hasn't stopped the anti-Catholic and anti-Pope folks from leaving comments on the WSJ website. Many are calling Pope Francis "a socialist and a total leftie".

From one -
"Well. . .this is one Catholic who will embrace this encyclical with the same fervor as modern Catholics have for the past 50 years when it comes to practicing artificial means of birth control.
And if this leftist claptrap gets preached in the Homily, watch the flight of American Catholic dollars from the Dioceses."

Or-
"It must be divine knowledge from god since this liberation theory catholic has joined with the left on more issues than this one. What does any of this have to do with saving souls? It certainly gives him street cred with all the other fools out there."

Finally-
"The Vatican is calling the 3 day early release a 'heinous act'. As Catholics, what difference does it make whether we're humiliated by the arrogance and ignorance of this Pope now or three days from now? "

I'm reasonably certain that quite a few Catholics will loudly object to the Pope's encyclical. The majority of American Catholics have ignored infallible Church teaching on artificial birth control; they aren't going to heed this statement, which is not being delivered ex cathedra.

Senator James Inhofe Wants Pope to Stay Out of Climate Debate.

Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, who calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" has taken issue with Pope Francis and the Pope's upcoming encyclical on climate change.

In a report from theguardian.com Inhofe was quoted, as saying,

"Everyone is going to ride the pope now. Isn’t that wonderful," he said. "The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours."
A few moments later, Inhofe said: "I am not going to talk about the pope. Let him run his shop, and we’ll run ours."

"The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours."? As far back as two years ago, Senator Inhofe said the Bible refutes climate change.

Eliason: Senator, we’re going to talk about your book for a minute, you state in your book which by the way is called The Greatest Hoax, you state in your book that one of your favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22, ‘while the earth remaineth seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease,’ what is the significance of these verses to this issue?

Inhofe: Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.



All I can say is, Senator, if you demand that Pope ought to stay with his job, while you stay with yours, shouldn't you stay out of his job?

Raul Castro Meets Pope Francis.

In the Pope Francis story of the week, it's being reported (aljazeera.com - npr.org - cnn.com - bbc.com - foxnews.com) that following his visit to Russia to commemorate World War Two Victory Day, Cuba dictator Raul Castro made a stop at the Vatican to thank Pope Francis for his help in easing the tensions between Cuba and the United States.

In all the stories, emphasis was placed on Castro's statement that, if Pope Francis continues to proceed along the path he's taking, Castro might return to the Catholic faith.

"I will resume praying and turn to the Church again if the Pope continues in this vein," Raul Castro told reporters.

With the exception off the BBC, the media is taking Castro at his word. In his analysis for the BBC Will Grant hints that Castro's statement may be tongue in cheek. Grant points out that the state-run newspaper Granma omitted Mr Castro's comments about returning to the Church when it reported the meeting on its website.

I would hope that Castro was serious in his remarks. It could only improve conditions for the Cubans - it might even keep Raul Castro out of Hell.

Not everyone agrees that Castro's returning to the Church would be a positive step. Many of the comments on the NPR report of the story were hostile to the Church.

The Original DB wrote: "Well, joining the Catholic Church would certainly be the best place to go to get some expert advice on swindling people".

In his version of history,Dillard Jenkins wrote: "I do not trust Catholics with my freedom. In fact it was chiefly the Catholic church that brought slavery to the West Indies following Christopher Columbus's stumbling into these islands will looking for a shortcut to India".

From Ron Conti: "The pope inspires me also. But not enough to want to attend any church let alone the Catholic church. The church destroyed that feeling years ago".

We'll just wait and see how this unfolds.

Writer Wants All Ten Year Old Boys Castrated.

It's funny, sometimes, how we get from point A to point B. The route we take isn't always the most direct.

This morning a found a spamish email in my inbox from the speroforum. I don't know why I've suddenly become the recipient of Speronews; to the best of my knowledge, I didn't intentionally subscribe to it. Be that as it may, thanks to the email, I learned of an open letter to Pope Francis being circulated by a group calling itself The Cornwall Alliance.

The group describes itself as,
"A coalition of theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen, the Cornwall Alliance is an evangelical voice promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles."

I've read their open letter, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. The letter, however, isn't the point of this post. The Cornwall Alliance website posts articles, originally posted elsewhere, which reference global warming - or climate change.

One such article is one written by Megan Toombs ,originally published on Townhall.com. In the article, Toombs rightly criticizes an article by Katie Herzog, Why I’ll never have kids, and why you shouldn’t either. As Toombs explains, Herzog's basic argument "is that Earth’s climate is in danger, it’s our fault, and something must be done—something drastic."

Herzog's solution?

"Ritualistically castrate all males at age ten, and destroy dams and other infrastructure, 'preparing the earth for the end of people' ".

Besides her view that reproducing human offspring is destroying the planet, another reason why she will never have babies is because she is "a tote-bag-carrying-nature-loving-gun-hating-child-free-atheist" Lesbian who has no maternal instinct.

Offhand, I can think of another reason why Herzog will never reproduce.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the Death Penalty

At the National Catholic Register , Christine Williams writes that Catholics Debate Fate of Boston Marathon Bomber. After asking if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev crime warrants the death, Williams presents arguments for and against Tsarnaev's execution, without actually taking a stand either way herself.

That's not the case with Jonah Goldberg, who believes that the Boston bomber conviction puts death penalty opponents in an awkward spot.

Goldberg is an unapologetic supporter of the death penalty; that column is pretty much a repeat of a piece from July, 2012 -When a murderer is unsympathetic, death-penalty foes hold their tongues.

I don't expect to change Goldberg's beliefs on the subject; he's unlikely to be convinced by any argument I could put forth.

He asks:

How about now?
Are you in favor of the death penalty now?
I ask because the preferred argument from opponents of the death penalty is doubt: We can never be sure; look at all of the people released from death row; we can't afford to risk ending a single innocent life.

No, I am not in favor of the death penalty now. "Doubt" is not my preferred argument. I have absolutely no doubt that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty as charged. He's guilty as Hell, but bringing up Michael Slager - "the North Charleston, S.C., cop who shot Walter Scott in the back as he was fleeing and then allegedly lied about why he did it"- doesn't change my mind either.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2267)

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

As Christians, we are called to show mercy and forgiveness. I realize that this will fall on deaf ears when speaking to non-Christians.

From a statement released by the four Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts:

"As the Bishops of the United States said in their 2005 statement A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death,'no matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.' We believe these words remain true today in the face of this most terrible crime".

So do I.

Further reading:Pope Francis: No matter what the crime, 'the death penalty is inadmissible'.
Pope Francis Would Spare Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Life.