CNA Staff, Aug 12, 2020 / 03:30 pm (CNA).- Catholics and pro-life organizations offered a range of reactions to the selection of Sen. Kamala Harris as former vice president Joe Biden’s running mate for the 2020 election.
Biden announced his selection on Aug. 11, triggering a wave of reactions among political and Catholic commentators
Fordham University professor Charles Camosy, who left the Democratic Party earlier this year over the party’s stance on abortion, called Harris a “deeply flawed” choice for VP.
“It is very good that a Black woman has been nominated for VP. And I can understand a desire to choose the lesser of two evils,” said Camosy on Twitter Wednesday.
“But for Catholics in favor of prenatal justice, and of government defending these children from terrible violence, we must say that Harris is a deeply flawed candidate. Unreserved praise of her VP candidacy is, in effect, yet another example of erasure of the prenatal child,” Camosy said.
Democrats for Life of America also criticized Harris’s selection, saying in a statement that she “does not provide pro-life Democrats with any assurances and will, in fact, further alienate 21 million Democratic voters who have been left out of the party for quite some time.”
Harris’ position on abortion, said Democrats for Life of America, is “far out of line with the majority of Democrats and Americans on this sensitive issue,” and encouraged Biden and Harris to reach out to pro-life Democrats and adjust the party’s platform stances on abortion.
Michael Sean Winters, a writer for the National Catholic Reporter and the author of “Left At the Altar: How Democrats Lost The Catholics And How Catholics Can Save The Democrats,” also expressed his reservations about Harris.
“[Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth] Warren was the person I wanted Biden to choose,” said Winters on Wednesday.
“After the racial tensions the nation experienced this summer, putting a Black woman on the ticket is to be commended,” Winters said, but called the selection of Harris a “setback for progressives.”
Winters was also critical of Harris’ 2018 questioning of a judicial nominee over his membership of the Knights of Columbus, calling her treatment of Brian C. Buescher “embarrassing in both its ignorance and its bigotry.”
At the time CNA broke the story, America Magazine published and editorial saying Harris’s questions to the prospective judge had shown “a surprising ignorance of the Knights’ many religious, charitable and civic activities beyond their direct political advocacy, not to mention a complete disregard for their history in opposing virulent anti-Catholicism in the nation’s past.”
“Whatever difficulties I have with the leadership at the K of C, they do not excuse her dismissiveness towards a religion held by millions of fellow citizens, including her new running mate,” said Winters Wednesday, following the announcement of Harris joining the ticket.
National Review writer Alexandra DeSanctis made a similar observation, saying Harris’s time on the Senate judiciary committee had shown “reprehensible anti-Catholic bigotry, and there’s no reason to believe her views have changed.”
Several commentators from across the political divide also noted Harris’s noted support for unlimited access to abortion.
Brian Burch, the president of CatholicVote, described Harris as “staunchly pro-abortion and anti-religious liberty,” and said that she “favors radical abortion policies including late-term abortion paid for by taxpayers, as well as forcing Catholic religious orders like the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide abortion drugs in their healthcare plans.”
On Twitter, CatholicVote called Harris a “devout anti-Catholic.”
Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Diocese of Providence said on Twitter that, in effect, Biden’s selection of Harris pointed to an absence of Catholic values by the Democratic candidate.
“Biden-Harris. First time in awhile [sic] that the Democratic ticket hasn’t had a Catholic on it. Sad.” tweeted Tobin on Tuesday. Biden, a Catholic who was on the Democratic ticket in 2008 and 2012, has come under sustained criticism from many Catholic leaders for his increasing support for abortion and for his having officiated at a same-sex wedding.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Leo XIV: Portrait of the First American Pope,” written by Matthew Bunson, vice president and editorial director at EWTN News. / Credit: Daniel Ibáñez/CNA
CNA Staff, May 23, 2025 / 17:14 pm (CNA).
EWTN officially launched the first authoritativ… […]
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
Pope Leo XIV addresses Catholic faithful on the scoreboard at Rate Field, home to the Chicago White Sox, during a celebration and mass to honor his selection as Pope on June 14, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois. / Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Setting aside her extreme pro-abortion views, it can be easily argued that the primary reason for the choice of Sen. Harris as Biden’s running mate is that she is (although she certainly doesn’t look like it) African-American.
Isn’t that a bit racist?
And long ago Biden made it clear that his V.P. running mate would be a woman, so it can be equally easily argued that the primary reason for choosing her is her gender.
“Deeply flawed” (but still deserving of your vote) may be a reasonable description of Donald Trump. What the Democrats have to offer is simply beyond the pale. They combine the politics of Stalin with unprecedented moral debauchery and perversity. No Catholic or sane person has any excuse for not doing everything legally possible to prevent them from winning elections. That would rule out voting for the “Solidarity Party” candidates who have no chance of and do not merit victory. Why does Dr. Camosy think that nominating a Black woman as opposed to a white (do I get points for having my capitalization right?) man necessarily a good thing? He also implies that Biden-Harris is the lesser of two evils. Exactly what is the basis for that statement? Of course, it is the usual Seamless Garment baloney. There is nothing quite like the responsible and respectable Catholic commentators with their measured and nuanced remarks. These fools should not be looked to for any guidance.
Since his views were thought worthy of mention in this article, it should be noted that Michael Sean Winters has expressed publicly his eager anticipation of the day when Catholic conservatives are brought to the guillotine. Not to worry, MSW, Kamala will do as much Lizzy would to hasten the moment if she is given the opportunity.
Being a belated RINO I must plead innocent to the depth of immorality in the Democrat Party that the many naysayers here have trashed Harris with. What little I know about Biden and Harris may be summed up in a few sentences of contrast…
Harris’ lack of Catholic dogma could be one of two things… If confronted with the fact that she might have aborted one of her two wonderful children for convenience or would she protect them in the womb? After all “black lives matter”. Or, she could be “ignorant” of Roe or the Hyde Amendment. Given her brilliance, I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Her amazing family history and her vast experience in the law and national legislation places both she and Biden in a unique position to govern at this dark moment in our nation’s need.
We have been Republicans all our lives. After the magnanimous failures of the Trump tenure in broad daylight, we are at sea in rough waters. Immorality, deception, attacks on individuals and treason are most disturbing. Add to that the mind boggling silence and complicity of the congress is not only ear piercing it is ear shattering. Notice I use the word treason. The definition: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years”. Trump since his meeting with Putin in Helsinki where he favored our mortal enemy, and who wages a ciberwar today against us, while trashing the warning of his intelligence experts places Trump a criminal traitor. He continues ’til this day to favor Putin with his adamant obsession that Russia “did not invade out 2016 elections” when the facts are abundantly in broad daylight.
21st-century Progressivism regresses into the 19th-century Know-Nothings.
The bumper sticker for Bidden-Harris: “B[iden-harri]S”.
It seems odd that Kamala Harris is referred to over and over again as a Black woman and not an Asian woman. It’s erasing her mother.
As with Barack Obama. His mother (and her parents who raised him) were pushed aside.
Sleepy Joe and Karen Harris. What a lovely couple.
Setting aside her extreme pro-abortion views, it can be easily argued that the primary reason for the choice of Sen. Harris as Biden’s running mate is that she is (although she certainly doesn’t look like it) African-American.
Isn’t that a bit racist?
And long ago Biden made it clear that his V.P. running mate would be a woman, so it can be equally easily argued that the primary reason for choosing her is her gender.
Isn’t that a bit sexist?
Signed,
Confused
“Deeply flawed” (but still deserving of your vote) may be a reasonable description of Donald Trump. What the Democrats have to offer is simply beyond the pale. They combine the politics of Stalin with unprecedented moral debauchery and perversity. No Catholic or sane person has any excuse for not doing everything legally possible to prevent them from winning elections. That would rule out voting for the “Solidarity Party” candidates who have no chance of and do not merit victory. Why does Dr. Camosy think that nominating a Black woman as opposed to a white (do I get points for having my capitalization right?) man necessarily a good thing? He also implies that Biden-Harris is the lesser of two evils. Exactly what is the basis for that statement? Of course, it is the usual Seamless Garment baloney. There is nothing quite like the responsible and respectable Catholic commentators with their measured and nuanced remarks. These fools should not be looked to for any guidance.
Since his views were thought worthy of mention in this article, it should be noted that Michael Sean Winters has expressed publicly his eager anticipation of the day when Catholic conservatives are brought to the guillotine. Not to worry, MSW, Kamala will do as much Lizzy would to hasten the moment if she is given the opportunity.
Being a belated RINO I must plead innocent to the depth of immorality in the Democrat Party that the many naysayers here have trashed Harris with. What little I know about Biden and Harris may be summed up in a few sentences of contrast…
Harris’ lack of Catholic dogma could be one of two things… If confronted with the fact that she might have aborted one of her two wonderful children for convenience or would she protect them in the womb? After all “black lives matter”. Or, she could be “ignorant” of Roe or the Hyde Amendment. Given her brilliance, I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Her amazing family history and her vast experience in the law and national legislation places both she and Biden in a unique position to govern at this dark moment in our nation’s need.
We have been Republicans all our lives. After the magnanimous failures of the Trump tenure in broad daylight, we are at sea in rough waters. Immorality, deception, attacks on individuals and treason are most disturbing. Add to that the mind boggling silence and complicity of the congress is not only ear piercing it is ear shattering. Notice I use the word treason. The definition: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years”. Trump since his meeting with Putin in Helsinki where he favored our mortal enemy, and who wages a ciberwar today against us, while trashing the warning of his intelligence experts places Trump a criminal traitor. He continues ’til this day to favor Putin with his adamant obsession that Russia “did not invade out 2016 elections” when the facts are abundantly in broad daylight.
God save the union
Or, she could be “ignorant” of Roe or the Hyde Amendment. Given her brilliance, I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
She’s a 55-year-old woman who has been working the public realm since 1990 or so. She has a 100% NARAL rating. She has a plan to protect “Roe v. Wade” from “anti-choice lawmakers”. I say we just take her at her record and word.