[berned]

Assuming that most folks here see the Earth Summit, and "Sustainable Developement" and the Kyoto Treaty as thinly-veiled attempts to re-distribute wealth in a pre-cursor to a One Wolrd Govt system -- then how do lines like...

-- "The goods of the earth are a unique patrimony of all of humanity.

-- "Their distribution must be regulated by justice and accompanied by love

-- "The richer countries must take a serious look at their lifestyle, which is consuming an inordinate share of the goods of the earth.

How do these positions differ from the positions of, say, Kofi Anan or Al Gore, or indeed, the ultra-left wing globalist enviro-wackos?

What, REALLY, does a statement that one's posessions or the global distribution of goods must be "REGULATED WITH JUSTICE"... what exactly, does that mean, and what could those words someday be construed to mean down the road? Justice according to whom?

[Catholicguy]

How do these positions differ from the positions of, say, Kofi Anan or Al Gore, or indeed, the ultra-left wing globalist enviro-wackos?

That some we disapprove of have similar ideas does not render those ideas incorrect. When one sees these statements one must keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity which Anan and Gore prolly haven't even heard of, or, if they have, they would surely reject

[nate4one]

does a statement that one's posessions or the global distribution of goods must be "REGULATED WITH JUSTICE"...

Wow did you add a lot to that statement that was not in the article!!

Where does it talk about distributing "one's possessions"???
It merely is saying that the environmental resources should be distributed or regulated with justice and love.
Meaning the oil should not be hogged by one power hungry tycoon or dictator. Or that fresh water be a resource only Americans can obtain, or that we act more responsibly with our wildlife an habitat.

Just because the left goes to the extreme, does not mean we can be irresbonsible or selfish with our NATURAL resources!

Ones own possessions not included. :o)

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

To all you folks arguing against the Church's position on redistrubution

Where in the article does the church advocate that it should be done through the force of government??