encyclical "Laudato Si'
"on global inequality and the moral burden on polluters — wealthy countries and people — to take action to protect the earth and the poor, is getting much attention today on talk shows, where religious and media types (not saying they don't overlap) are debating whether fossil fuels are a boon to the poor or destroying the earth and the pope's position that population control is not the answer, a position he must take but which is patently wrong. (Who can sensibly argue that the earth can sustain 7 billion people and counting? Here's an unsettling fact: There are twice as many people on earth today as there were in 1970, according to census and other data aggregated by Worldometers
Here's a blog by a Catholic on the right
who has criticized the encyclical as being naive when he talks about "a deified market."
I have not heard it yet, but surely this is also being discussed: What difference does the pope's opinion make? Will the Arkansas Diocese now seek to address pollution? (I've sent an email asking if the diocese plans to comment on "Laudato Si'.") Will it change anything anywhere? I put this out here so you all can begin your own debate.
By the way, I see that Jason Rapert follows the papal Twitter account. He and the pope are on common ground when it comes to a woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy. But what about the rest? Will Rapert embrace such leftist ideas as "love one another," even folks parading on the Sabbath?