Rumors of job change for Cardinal critical of Pope’s climate change encyclical

  • Chaplain of the Papal Order of the Apostolic Latrine, is said to be the new assignment in the offing for Australia’s Cardinal Pell
  • In the mean time our local Bishop apparently insists that diocesan editors correct people for not referring to Pope Francis as a “scientist.” 

Communist leaders do not tolerate this kind of “insubordination”. We’ll see how Pope Francis handles it. From Thomas Lifson writing at American Thinker:

High-ranking cardinal rebukes Pope Francis on climate change encyclical  

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is not much noted for open dissent, but Pope Francis has run into serious flak from a member of the College of Cardinals. The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

Cardinal George Pell has publicly criticised Pope Francis’ decision to place climate change at the top of the Catholic Church’s agenda.

Cardinal Pell, a well-known climate change skeptic, told the Financial Times the church had “no particular expertise in science”.

“The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters,” he said,

“We believe in the autonomy of science.” (snip)

Cardinal Pell, the man expected to stand up to reluctant officials in the Vatican who opposed financial reform, is also standing up to the man who gave him his current high-ranking job.

I suppose that this will play out in private. But if not, it could be one heckuva battle. When Pope Francis elevated this cardinal to the top level of the Vatican hierarchy, I doubt he expected this much independence.

Not House of Borgia stuff, but Pope Francis is not above purging and “discipline” making sure his people “appreciate” the program. Consider these articles about Pope Francis’ treatment of conservative American Cardinal Raymond Burke.

Catholic World Report: Cardinal Burke to be demoted, removed as prefect of the supreme tribunal

AP: American Cardinal Raymond Burke demoted by Pope Francis

Reuters: Pope demotes outspoken American conservative cardinal

Cardinal Burke, age wise is in his prime, under this Pope he will languish as Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

DLH with R Mall

The “Scientist Pope” — leftist propaganda machine unabated by DCM

Forgive our lengthy prelude for the benefit of readers not familiar with local official Catholic culture.

The Ordinary of Davenport (any presumed double entendre is in the eyes of the beholder) a.k.a. Bishop of Davenport Martin Amos is the publisher of the Davenport Catholic Messenger (DCM).  It is the diocesan newspaper, it is a vehicle for teaching and advocating Catholic doctrine to the extent the Bishop wishes.  As publisher he is ultimately responsible for all content, with the power to set standards, cause changes or correctives in content and tone. The editor is responsible to him for what goes into the paper.  For the Bishop to give free reign to an editor does not absolve him of responsibility.

Bishop Amos, perhaps out of humility, and not unlike previous “ordinaries” of the diocese does not choose to impart a lot of erudition personally into the publication. The “Bishop’s Letter”  Bishop Amos’ supposed opportunity for reflection or teaching is intermittent, usually less than 300 words, and often centered on an announcement of some sort that could be written as a news item by any staffer.  It certainly need not be limited to official announcements.

We describe the lay of the land at the DCM which in our observation has been in effect for decades.  We are not aware of any Bishop in this Diocese giving other than a free hand to the DCM editor for choice of columnists and the like (if not directing who appeared on the pages).  Previously at least the longest reigning editors have insured that the publication by it’s choice of wire feed items, opinion columnists and often their own editorials fits  notoriously in the camp of apologists for Catholic liberalism.

Longtime observers of the Catholic left will recognize the names Drinan, Higgins, McBrien and Greeley whose utterances were fondly referenced if not syndicated by the DCM. They were all essentially liberal Catholic political operatives and critics of conservative members of the hierarchy for which there was usually no featured on-point rebuttal or countervailing conservative. Balance during those years at least was not a serious watchword.  Including today we don’t believe there is an element of Catholic “progressive” leftist thought that the operatives of the chancery and the DCM would not enthusiastically adapt to and champion, and the Bishops assigned here, heretofore, would not ignore.

One indelible vignette in our mind (among many associated with this diocese) is the report that the immediately preceding Social Action Director for the Diocese (now deceased, but continuously lionized) “danced the night away” celebrating the election and inauguration of Barack Obama. With what was known about Obama it was a display equivalent to celebrating the installment of a new Planned Parenthood director.

That is the effective culture imbued in the official apparat of this diocese, in our humble opinion of course.  And now the virtual giddiness surrounding Pope Francis’ recent climate encyclical.  We have no doubt that the chancery apparat would like to see the DCM devote more pages to instructing the faithful in political furtherance of the Pope’s essential call for Marxist precepts using climate change scare mongering as a vehicle.

Part of that involves protecting the propaganda that Pope Francis “is a scientist” and has  in depth knowledge of  climate science.

The author of a recent letter to the editor of the DCM, interpretively in support of the encyclical overall, had the temerity to suggest the following   (excerpt):

Some people go as far to claim that this encyclical shows Pope Francis’ support for their political views. Pope Fran­cis is neither a scientist nor a politician. Using his encyclical to support a biased political agenda is wrong and certainly misses the point. I ask those writing about the encyclical to focus on the whole message, not a narrow political agenda.

However the DCM would allow no uncorrected divergence from the propaganda about the Pope’s background.  The response to the letter writer was assertively expressed:

Editor’s note: Pope Francis is a scientist, with a degree in chemistry. He is not speaking as a scientist, but refers to scientific findings, as did St. John Paul II.

If another word for propaganda is hogwash, then that is what the editor’s assertion that the Pope is a scientist is. We say so by no less an authority than the National Catholic Reporter (we offer it because it is the recognized “newspaper of record” for Catholic liberals which at least previous editors of the DCM tried to emulate).

In truth Pope Francis has a certificate from what amounts to a high school trade school or junior college. You wouldn’t call a graduate of a high school trade school or community college “majoring” in welding or carpentry a “metallurgist” or an “architect.”

Pope Francis is not a scientist nor any more knowledgeable or necessarily appreciative of the scientific method than a carpenter or welder, nor would you properly trust either such graduate as a consulting engineer or architect without one hell of a lot of hands on experience in key aspects of the field.  The Pope has no such level of experience. He was a lab functionary for a short time doing routine tests in a food factory before he went on to seminary.  Portraying him as someone with special knowledge is propaganda and corruption of the truth.

R Mall

This entry was posted in MEDIA BIAS, RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT, UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Rumors of job change for Cardinal critical of Pope’s climate change encyclical

  1. Gus says:

    There must be a lot of crickets in Italy. That’s all we hear around the Vatican these days. The quipster who has opinions on a lot of stuff and likes to express them, Pope Francis, seems to be at a loss for words lately regarding the newly disclosed activities and attitudes of the good folks at “Planned Infanticide”, er “Parenthood”( if you can say that with a straight face).

    How about that, Your Holiness? No comment, or is this really due to “climate change”…the fetuses are hardest hit by it? Only a “scientist” would know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *