Among Republicans, Catholics stand with Pope Francis on the environment

[sps49]

There are several levels to this.

There are those who believe global warming is a fact.

Of those, some smaller percentage believe human activities are all or partly the cause.

Of those, some smaller number believes MMGW is a serious threat.

Of those, some smaller number believes there should be government programs to mitigate it.

Of those, some smaller number believes in the draconian Obama intent to “make utility bills skyrocket” and do things that will drive jobs overseas.

By the time you get to the “bottom line”, so to speak, I doubt the majority of Catholics, Repubs or Dems are still with the program.

In all of those cases there is no clean attribution argument. Until attribution is established, then AGW is on the imaginary axis.

 

[gilliam]

In all of those cases there is no clean attribution argument. Until attribution is established, then AGW is on the imaginary axis.

Even those who are classified as skeptics believe:

1. The Earth is warming
2. Part of the cause is human influence.

 

[shockerfan]

Even those who are classified as skeptics believe:

1. The Earth is warming
2. Part of the cause is human influence.

Seems to me we would have more agreement by just changing our language. If we said we should not pollute the air and focus on sulphur dioxide and other non-CO2 gases we would have common ground. Same for not dumping chromium in the ground water, or throwing garbage in the ocean, or over-fishing, or cutting down forests, etc.

The basic theology of “be a good steward of the earth” is something there should be no disagreement with.

It would also help if there actually was a scientific debate on CO2, as opposed to demonization of differing scientific perspectives.

 

[sps49]

Even those who are classified as skeptics believe:

1. The Earth is warming
2. Part of the cause is human influence.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, in its various forms, states that mankind’s contribution of CO2 will cause increases in the average temperature (whatever that is) of the earth, and as a consequence climate change. This is further amplified to mean that the magnitude of the change is measurable, and that the attribution may be cleanly assigned to mankind’s CO2 emissions. Then what follows is that this change is bad news for civilization and various critters.

Very few people I know would claim that CO2 emissions don’t do something to climate, the nits to pick are in the magnitude of effect. Temperature changes of 200ppm? 2000ppm? 10000ppm? No one knows. That is what I mean by the attribution argument is not figured out. Climate change is not a zero threshold problem, no matter how many wish it to be. There are enormous problems with the models, coupled models, their paramaterizations, and interactions. Until these models, analysis and instrumentation are cleaned up to the point where the signal to noise is high enough to discern unambiguously that the attribution is natural or man made, the science is not settled.

The argument usually vectors in this direction, by claiming people don’t believe in climate change, when the real question is what is the attribution and magnitude of that attribution. Have I cleared that misconception of yours up now?

 

[gracepoole]

But regardless, our system works for us. We’re probably the only country that our system would work for, but it works for us.

:ehh:

Who’s this “us” you speak of? 'Cause as a fellow American, I frankly can’t imagine. It’s an asinine system that is ruled by money. A spectacular recipe for disaster.

 

[gracepoole]

He’s being deluded by liberal elites that are not only hostile to the Church, but to the working class he professes to support.

I find these kinds of claims on the increase around here – and they’re always sad. Our pope is no fool, nor are those who advise him. Paul VI, I’m guessing, knew little about the birth control pill and this is why he turned to experts. Yet because people here generally agree with Humanae Vitae, there’s no claim that Paul VI was a stooge. If Americans would step out of their geographic box, they’d realize that “liberal elites” are often an American-made boogeyman.

 

[bibcat]

I find these kinds of claims on the increase around here – and they’re always sad. Our pope is no fool, nor are those who advise him. Paul VI, I’m guessing, knew little about the birth control pill and this is why he turned to experts. Yet because people here generally agree with Humanae Vitae, there’s no claim that Paul VI was a stooge. If Americans would step out of their geographic box, they’d realize that “liberal elites” are often an American-made boogeyman.

Not only to most Roman Catholics NOT are with Humane Vitae, most of the experts advising Pope Paul Vi didn’t either. Paul VI went against their recommendations anyhow and condemned all artificial birth control. As a result, he drove most Catholics-- at least in advanced nations–into disobedience, if not rebellion against the Church, and helped create what many here call cafeteria Catholicism. So mistakes and poor judgement happen even at the very top.

 

[gracepoole]

Not only to most Roman Catholics NOT are with Humane Vitae, most of the experts advising Pope Paul Vi didn’t either. Paul VI went against their recommendations anyhow and condemned all artificial birth control. As a result, he drove most Catholics-- at least in advanced nations–into disobedience, if not rebellion against the Church, and helped create what many here call cafeteria Catholicism. So mistakes and poor judgement happen even at the very top.

How funny that you mention cafeteria Catholics… More and more of those around here lately, only they’re not from the same political persuasion anymore.

 

[ishii]

How funny that you mention cafeteria Catholics… More and more of those around here lately, only they’re not from the same political persuasion anymore.

Is there a Church teaching on man made global warming - like there is on contraception and those other issues normally associated with “cafeteria” Catholics? I ask because it seems like its okay for good Catholics to disagree on that issue. Is it possible that liberal catholics who believe in global warming, environmentalist agenda, etc. are using this issue as a test of “obedience to the Pope” that is not the same as obedience to the Pope on other issues?

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

Is there a Church teaching on man made global warming - like there is on contraception and those other issues normally associated with “cafeteria” Catholics? I ask because it seems like its okay for good Catholics to disagree on that issue. Is it possible that liberal catholics who believe in global warming, environmentalist agenda, etc. are using this issue as a test of “obedience to the Pope” that is not the same as obedience to the Pope on other issues?

Ishii

There is clear Church teaching on caring for the environment. It seems that some don’t want to remember even this, let alone global warming. The Pope’s encyclical has clear moral implications.

And this is interesting:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/the-rise-of-conservative-cafeteria-catholicsism.html

 

[ishii]

There is clear Church teaching on caring for the environment. It seems that some don’t want to remember even this, let alone global warming. The Pope’s encyclical has clear moral implications.

And this is interesting:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/the-rise-of-conservative-cafeteria-catholicsism.html

Yes, but “caring for the environment” is way more open to interpretation than the teaching on contraception. The church does not explicitly outline our obligations and what to do to protect the environment, like it does outline our obligations with the social issues, contraception, etc. So there is a big difference and it seems very misleading to accuse conservatives who differ from the left on how to take care of the environment, “cafeteria catholics” which implies they are blatantly disobeying Catholic teaching. I guess the challenge to you is to tell us how specifically conservatives are “disobeying” Church teaching when it comes to the environment?

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

Yes, but “caring for the environment” is way more open to interpretation than the teaching on contraception. The church does not explicitly outline our obligations and what to do to protect the environment, like it does outline our obligations with the social issues, contraception, etc. So there is a big difference and it seems very misleading to accuse conservatives who differ from the left on how to take care of the environment, “cafeteria catholics” which implies they are blatantly disobeying Catholic teaching. I guess the challenge to you is to tell us how specifically conservatives are “disobeying” Church teaching when it comes to the environment?

Ishii

If you look around the forums right now, there are open threads in which conservative Catholics are asking whether they can disregard the encyclical in total. That, I would say, is ill-advised to say the least. Because they want to reject it wholesale, they are not only disagreeing with whatever Pope Francis might say about human involvement with global warming – they’re disagreeing with his emphasis on what has been taught regarding the environment and our duty to it by many past popes. That’s cafeteria Catholicism. So I’m not claiming that those challenging only global warming theories are falling into this category, necessarily.

But of course, as noted in the piece by Fr. Longenecker that I included, conservative cafeteria Catholicism began before this encyclical…

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Come election time in the US I can hear Catholic voters saying that since Francis said the environment is important and he said we should not always focus on abortion it is ok to vote for a candidate that is strong on fixing so-called AGW and ignore their stance on abortion.

 

[ishii]

If you look around the forums right now, there are open threads in which conservative Catholics are asking whether they can disregard the encyclical in total. That, I would say, is ill-advised to say the least. Because they want to reject it wholesale, they are not only disagreeing with whatever Pope Francis might say about human involvement with global warming – they’re disagreeing with his emphasis on what has been taught regarding the environment and our duty to it by many past popes. That’s cafeteria Catholicism. So I’m not claiming that those challenging only global warming theories are falling into this category, necessarily.

But of course, as noted in the piece by Fr. Longenecker that I included, conservative cafeteria Catholicism began before this encyclical…

Noted, gracepoole. For the record, I have not said that we should disregard any encyclical. We ought to take them seriously. But doesn’t encyclical encourage debate on this? And isn’t this topic fundamentally different from the other issues that we normally associate with cafeteria catholicism / disobedience ?

Come election time in the US I can hear Catholic voters saying that since Francis said the environment is important and he said we should not always focus on abortion it is ok to vote for a candidate that is strong on fixing so-called AGW and ignore their stance on abortion.

Yes, they will say, “I cannot vote for the Republican because they are against Catholic teaching on the environment” and they will also say, “I have to vote for the pro-abortion Democrat because they are in line with Pope Francis on the environment.”

Wait and see.

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

Come election time in the US I can hear Catholic voters saying that since Francis said the environment is important and he said we should not always focus on abortion it is ok to vote for a candidate that is strong on fixing so-called AGW and ignore their stance on abortion.

I think that’s a certainty. Pro-abortionists are going to use this encyclical against the teachings of the Church. That’s the pity of it.

 

[gilliam]

I think that’s a certainty. Pro-abortionists are going to use this encyclical against the teachings of the Church. That’s the pity of it.

Only if they didn’t read the encyclical.

People should actually read it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Only if they didn’t read the encyclical.

People should actually read it.

I’m not sure who the “they” are in the above. The abortion party will not care what the encyclical says. They will only want to persuade Catholics that it’s okay to vote for abortion so long as the abortion candidate is on all fours with MMGW.

And another “they” will be the Catholics who will not read the encyclical. Another “they” will be those Catholics who think an otherwise good encyclical was marred by a seeming adoption of an unfounded conclusion.

And another “they” will be the protestants who won’t read it but will read or hear about it and conclude that Catholicism is just a wing of the Democrat party and reject it for that reason though they might not have done so otherwise.

 

[gracepoole]

Noted, gracepoole. For the record, I have not said that we should disregard any encyclical. We ought to take them seriously.

Oh, of course. I’m sorry if I indicated the opposite regarding you specifically.

But doesn’t encyclical encourage debate on this? And isn’t this topic fundamentally different from the other issues that we normally associate with cafeteria catholicism / disobedience ?

Wholesale disregard for the encyclical = cafeteria Catholicism. I’m fine with debate about specific points but there is much within it that cannot be disregarded by faithful Catholics. I both was and wasn’t surprised to find folks here and elsewhere who are interested in completely dismissing the entire document.

 

[gracepoole]

I think that’s a certainty. Pro-abortionists are going to use this encyclical against the teachings of the Church. That’s the pity of it.

Then they certainly haven’t read it and its specific prohibition on abortion.

 

[gilliam]

I’m not sure who the “they” are in the above. The abortion party will not care what the encyclical says. They will only want to persuade Catholics that it’s okay to vote for abortion so long as the abortion candidate is on all fours with MMGW.

And another “they” will be the Catholics who will not read the encyclical. Another “they” will be those Catholics who think an otherwise good encyclical was marred by a seeming adoption of an unfounded conclusion.

And another “they” will be the protestants who won’t read it but will read or hear about it and conclude that Catholicism is just a wing of the Democrat party and reject it for that reason though they might not have done so otherwise.

And certain Republicans are bad mouthing the encyclical because they are afraid Catholics will actually pay attention to it and their stock will go down. Why should we care what these two opponents say or think?