Catholic Perspectives on Climate Change and Population

[kimmielittle]

Without explanation, your analogy lacks soundness and validity.

It holds as much validity as your assumption that the Holy Father has given his blessing to AGW…by attending a meeting and offering a speech about good stewardship of our environment.

I can attend a meeting about sex education and lend support for it…but Not condone abortion…premarital sex…rape…etc etc

The question to which I would like a response is, “Why would Pope Benedict lend his support to an international meeting designed to mitigate anthropogenic climate change if he did not believe that anthropogenic climate change is a reality?” The premise of the meeting was that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. If he disagreed with this premise, why would he support the meeting?

He supported good stewardship NOT AGW Two entirely different baskets.

To embrace AGW…means you have to put creation above God
To embrace good stewardship is to embrace God

 

[kmcgwire31]

I think I’ve reached the point where I don’t have the time or energy to present any more facts. Despite direct quotes to the contrary, it appears that you have decided a priori that neither the Pope nor Bishops accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Such is your prerogative, and I wish you blessings and peace.

 

[4elise]

Nice uncharitable try

After this, I’d appreciate you not preaching charity to me…you see I choose my mentors…very careful. It seems, to me, to be a one-way concept.

very funny indeed…
After all the assumptions, and complete unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility that the assumption was in error (about the placement of content on a npo web site), to the lack of ability to answer direct questions, after the repeated misdirection, (now we are talking about how well paid lobbiests are, now we are talking about sex education, oh… wait there it is ‘abortion’)

Oh well… so much for trying to be funny!
Being clever is more important to some folks than anything else - I’ve never been very good at it - you however are very clever - I know that I’ve come to this point in discussions with you before Kimmielittle - and you took it as an insult when I asked if you were studding law - it would be SO nice to be able to be able to discuss the topic at hand - but over and over it gets taken in other directions, then there is a need to respond, that goes in another direction, (yet you don’t reply to questions that are posed to you??) so you are too clever for me. so here is your award! :yeah_me:

Blessings

 

[4elise]

I think I’ve reached the point where I don’t have the time or energy to present any more facts. Despite direct quotes to the contrary, it appears that you have decided a priori that neither the Pope nor Bishops accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Such is your prerogative, and I wish you blessings and peace.

A good way to resolve this discussion… thank you for participating, and helping point to what is actually being said by the Church.
Blessings

 

[kimmielittle]

I think I’ve reached the point where I don’t have the time or energy to present any more facts. Despite direct quotes to the contrary, it appears that you have decided a priori that neither the Pope nor Bishops accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Such is your prerogative, and I wish you blessings and peace.

Climate change is a natural God created reality.
AGW is a man made attempt to displace God.

I do not think The Holy Father supports the later. AND there is no evidence to the contrary.

Peace
.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Like most things, I have learned to approach ecology with moderation an caution. I believe that the earth is important, and deserves respect and care in that it is the temporal home for human beings. While I believe that humans have a responsibility to be sensible in ecological matters, I don’t want to go off the rails either, which gives fuel to the depopulationists, abortionists and eugenicists who would like a much leaner population and birth rate in defense of “the planet”. “The planet” can take care of itself just fine thank you. I’ll be onboard with being green in a sensible way always. I’ll be a LITTLE extra green until the moment I start hearing the rumblings of how we have to keep any more people from being born in order to save the planet. I know this sounds kind of like tin foil hat material, but it’s just possible enough to keep me on my guard that this will be used as ammo by the eventual one world government to thin the herd, (among other things already being set up, such has “hatecrime”, “hatespeach”, and eventually “hatethought”). I wish it were otherwise, but I really believe things are coming to a close here pretty quick. I’d be pretty excited about it if it weren’t for the fact that I’m worried about so many souls not being on board with Jesus. I just live, watch and pray. I use cloth bags mostly, and I use public transportation. I turn off lights that aren’t needed and if it’s yellow I let it mellow. Having said all that, I will never promote birth control, abortion, or euthenasia as options to help the earth under ANY circumstances. Ever. Ends do not justify means. If it can’t be fixed without grave sin, then it’s not supposed to be.

Peace,

Steven

 

[kimmielittle]

very funny indeed…
After all the assumptions, and complete unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility that the assumption was in error (about the placement of content on a npo web site),

I have a right to assume that web page / domain owners / server renters…know what’s in their pages.

I was challenged by you to prove they had an administrator and tech…I did so.
I also proved that the site had funding - not some poor charity …that you claimed. But in fact a lobbyist group…paid for with money given to directly support the poor.

to the lack of ability to answer direct questions,

Let’s say, I learned that trick from you BUT ask again.

I’ll ask again, How does Cap and Trade…Carbon Credits…Population Control The only solutions offered to change the climate ] work to protect the poor? Just how does it change climate? hint It’s an unproven harmful theory…highly subjected speculated theory…nothing more ]

after the repeated misdirection, (now we are talking about how well paid lobbiests are,

It was you who tried to sell the lobbyist group as some under funded charitable organization…as a reason not to be responsible for ** their ** web page content.

now we are talking about sex education, oh… wait there it is ‘abortion’)

Surely you can see the analogy used to discredit the claim made.

Oh well… so much for trying to be funny!
Being clever is more important to some folks than anything else - I’ve never been very good at it - you however are very clever - I know that I’ve come to this point in discussions with you before Kimmielittle - and you took it as an insult when I asked if you were studding law - it would be SO nice to be able to be able to discuss the topic at hand - but over and over it gets taken in other directions, then there is a need to respond, that goes in another direction, (yet you don’t reply to questions that are posed to you??) so you are too clever for me. so here is your award! :yeah_me:

If you wish to discuss GOOD STEWARDSHIP with me…fine…but don’t attempt to hook it with anti-Catholic teachings. AGW is a concept void of God. AND I STAND by that last statement.

 

[kimmielittle]

Like most things, I have learned to approach ecology with moderation an caution. I believe that the earth is important, and deserves respect and care in that it is the temporal home for human beings. While I believe that humans have a responsibility to be sensible in ecological matters, I don’t want to go off the rails either, which gives fuel to the depopulationists, abortionists and eugenicists who would like a much leaner population and birth rate in defense of “the planet”. “The planet” can take care of itself just fine thank you. I’ll be onboard with being green in a sensible way always. I’ll be a LITTLE extra green until the moment I start hearing the rumblings of how we have to keep any more people from being born in order to save the planet. I know this sounds kind of like tin foil hat material, but it’s just possible enough to keep me on my guard that this will be used as ammo by the eventual one world government to thin the herd, (among other things already being set up, such has “hatecrime”, “hatespeach”, and eventually “hatethought”). I wish it were otherwise, but I really believe things are coming to a close here pretty quick. I’d be pretty excited about it if it weren’t for the fact that I’m worried about so many souls not being on board with Jesus. I just live, watch and pray. I use cloth bags mostly, and I use public transportation. I turn off lights that aren’t needed and if it’s yellow I let it mellow. Having said all that, I will never promote birth control, abortion, or euthenasia as options to help the earth under ANY circumstances. Ever. Ends do not justify means. If it can’t be fixed without grave sin, then it’s not supposed to be.

Peace,

Steven

Well said:thumbsup:

 

[kimmielittle]

How is AGW void of God?

Well let’s look.
For the concept of AGW to work, it has to deny other natural drivers. Other elements created by God…Man becomes the driver. This is the ONLY way the theory of AGW has merit.

It has to deny the other natural God Driven elements…and** place man as sole contributor** - thus, denying God and Nature.

Used to promote schemes and taxes…as soon as All of God’s Nature enters the equation…no means to tax …redistribute …control …exists.

Climate Change on the other hand embraces God’s Nature…ALL of it…as the driver. This is where we are called to be good stewards of these Gifts from God…AND they these Gift’s ] can’t be regulated…controlled or used to oppress. This is why AGW has to deny them…Deny God’s Nature… AGW works. Admit God’s Nature…it fails.

 

[aspawloski4th]

The thesis of anthropogenic climate change is supported by the following (non-exhaustive) list of scientific bodies:

• NASA (climate.nasa.gov/)
• Environmental Protection Agency EPA (epa.gov/climatechange/)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (noaa.gov/climate.html)
• U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) (nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/)
• U.S. National Academies of Science (dels.nas.edu/climatechange/)

If you feel that your background qualifies you to challenge the scientific consensus of these bodies, then such is your prerogative. However, the Holy Father and Bishops have accepted this scientific consensus, and have called for faithful climate action to uphold Catholic commitments to care for Creation, give priority to the poor, promote the common good, and engage in solidarity. As the Bishops have said,

“In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.” -Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good nccbuscc.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

Those are all political. Why don’t you ask the rank and fille memebers of those agencies, and I bet you’d get something much different.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I read through the thread and it appears to be mostly about climate change, not population. But population is the more serious issue. Not overpopulation, but depopulation. It is depopulation that threatens the existence of the human species.

pop.org/

Depopulation with sexbillion people on the planet??? You are joking right???

 

[JimG]

Depopulation with sexbillion people on the planet??? You are joking right???

No.

 

[Tigg]

This from their page:
Who We Are

The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change is a membership organization drawing guidance and support from a growing list of national Catholic organizations. These include:

* From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
      o Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development
      o Migration and Refugee Services
* Catholic Charities USA
* Catholic Relief Services
* Catholic Health Association of the United States
* Conference of Major Superiors of Men
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference
* Franciscan Action Network
* National Council of Catholic Women
* Leadership Conference of Women Religious
* Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
* Carmelite NGO

**You find fault with all these groups? **
"

Oh yes, some of them I do! Besides the obvious ones, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious are under doctrinal investigation by the Vatican and includes the usual list of dissidents!

 

[4elise]

Oh yes, some of them I do! Besides the obvious ones, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious are under doctrinal investigation by the Vatican and includes the usual list of dissidents!

Therefore?

 

[Tigg]

Therefore?

Their credibility and “Catholic” perspective on climate change and population is highly suspect especially when I hear them tout the praises, not of our Eternal God, but of Mother Earth and Creation!

 

[4elise]

Their credibility and “Catholic” perspective on climate change and population is highly suspect especially when I hear them tout the praises, not of our Eternal God, but of Mother Earth and Creation!

What I read here is a call to care for God’s gift of creation keeping man at the heart of decisions - all people everywhere… And the bishops have offered clarification on the Catholic perspective as opposed to a secular approach…that is why I posted this originally because this offered the clarity of a Catholic view

 

[joannazenobia]

No.

The Black population in America are already on the decline.

Here is another one:

www.demographicwinter.com

 

[masha]

Wow,
look what I missed while I was gone

I just finished reading through the thread and:

Kimmie, your ellipses are a bit excessive, please rein them in a bit. They make it difficult for me to focus on what you are trying to get across. You are right in that you do have the right to assume anything you like about the domain owners, but knowing the wild world of the internet as you do, and not knowing the individuals in question, you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, not slander their characters with unproved assumptions. I know that slander isn’t your intent. Sometimes (especially online) we have to work harder to focus on the human behind the words.

About climate change, I really don’t think it is caused by man. The earth’s climate is always changing, our changes (as far as I understand them) are similar to others that preceded the ice ages. The earth is overdue for another ice age. My assumption is that we are approaching the new ice age. That doesn’t mean I don’t support “green alternatives” and a less careless stewardship of the earth. My family is in the final stages of going completely “off the grid,” our lifestyle is very “green” in many ways, but as you’ve said many times, Kimmie, “for the right reasons.” Those reasons are Beauty, Truth, and Goodness.

But remember too, Kimmie, that simply because someone is generally wrong on issues doesn’t mean they are always wrong. Most people see the Truth in only a limited way, and we shouldn’t avoid reading and gleaning truth from people simply because we disagree with most of what they’ve written. That’s why God gave us intelligence, natural law, and common sense.

Blessings,
Masha

 

[tpw]

First of all none of these groups “supported abortion” in the healthcare bill. That’s a flat out lie and distortion of a complicated political position. Read Fr. Bryan Hehir’s recent evaluation of the healthcare debate where he argues that BOTH positions were tenable Catholic positions.

Secondly, you’re welcome to stand alone on an island screaming for help. Your demonstrated inability to think with the rest of the church on climate change because of “who is associated with the position” is utterly absurd. Argue against the position - not those who take it.

Third, what kind of world would you have the unborn be born into? Have you adopted some sort of Gnostic/Manichean position where the “material world” is somehow evil?

This is a sad and distressing state of affairs when good Catholics are attacked without rhyme or reason.

 

[tpw]

Tigg…I congratulate you on successfully extending the lies and suspicion originally perpetuated by WatchingMedia on this thread. In your infinite knowledge you’ve insinuated that the Catholic groups/organizations which subscribe to Catholic Climate Change are somehow “disloyal” to the church.

Your comments re: the Leadership of Religious Women state a fact about an investigation of this fine group of women. But guess what? No finding has been released.

If one follows your thinking …every Catholic seminary and men’s religious community in the U.S. is suspect because they too were “under investigation”.

It’s one thing to disagree with a position. You somehow can’t be bothered to argue on the principles of a postion, but engage in nasty ad hominem attacks.

Who does this help?