Catholic Perspectives on Climate Change and Population

[4elise]

What’s the difference? I am simply astounded by your comment because it is, by now, legendary that the interaction of many “Catholic” organizations (like CRS and Catholic Charities) with various and sundry political groups and community organizers, ARE, under the guise of “social justice, family planning and women’s reproductive health,” funding abortions and providing contraception on an international scale. I suggest you research the ties between CRS and the Gates and Howard Buffet Foundations which are two of the wealthiest and most anti-life forces in the world and the very greatest promoters of population control which is being done hand-in-hand with government. Also see the community organizing of IAF and their “political work” (by their own admission) which has been funded in the past by our bishops. The links have been posted over and over again on various threads in this forum, so I won’t even bother.

The plea of ignorance from the episcopate that they did not know these groups fund causes antithetical to the most basic of church teaching, is, quite frankly, getting a little thin by now. Cooperation with evil or tolerance of the same is not an option for us.

Regarding climate change, it is obvious that even the scientists do not agree, so with that level of uncertainty, I’m a little confused as to why the progressives in the Church have been so adamant about this particular subject. Again, it brings the question to mind……WHO are they listening to? We know the political progressives are working adamantly on Cap and Trade which will significantly impact all our lives by the sheer cost. So I’m trying to reconcile in my own mind the contradiction of supporting Cap and Trade in conjunction with protecting a global climate and showing concern for ALL of God’s people, especially the poor and how they will fare in the cold when they have the least capability of all to heat their homes and stay alive.

One of the things that makes discussions like this difficult are accusations about association and connections that some believe, and others do not. I have seen first hand the tremendous good CRS does in the world - which I believe should make every Catholic feel proud. The lives of men, women and children around the US are improved daily with the dedication of Catholic Charities. From what I have personally seen these organizations have not only maintained the Catholic values of all life is sacred, but do so with limited resources and unlimited faith.

Regarding climate change - it is NOT obvious that scientists disagree - there are a few by % who are vocal about there being no anthroprogenic factors -

As for Cap and Trade - this is NOT something I believe should be the solution (because it is being shown to actually make things worse - I recommend this video on cap and trade - : storyofstuff.com/) and I think it is wrong to assume that the ‘progressives’ in the Church (like the Holy Father?) are advocating for this solution - but instead advocating for MANY solutions (by individuals and governments) that can add up to mitigating our impact on the climate because it is all about PEOPLE - PEOPLE who live here, there and everywhere - and the PEOPLE who will live tomorrow and generations to come - we have a responsibility to all our sisters and brother, and we can not turn a blind eye to this responsibility. Blessings

 

[4elise]

forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=488

 

[tpw]

Archangel:

Your comments re: “choices” refugee make fly in the face of testimony of people who work with refugees. They’re more inclined to talk about being “forced” out of their countries by war, poverty, persecution, environmental decay (see esp. sub-Saharan Africans) . No one leaves their home of origin simply based on “choice”. I’m not sure who is spreading this absurd calculation other than someone who either really doesn’t get it or has a vested interest and agenda intended to exploit the average person’s lack of knowledge about these problems for some other nefarious purpose.

Joseph, Mary and Jesus - the Christian paradigm for those who are refugees didn’t simply “choose” to leave Judea-Palestine. They fled for their very lives. Same was true of the early Christians who fled Roman persecution.

Also sorry to see that you simply discard Boston College because of the problems “those people” have. The anthology of essays on the plight and needs of refugees drew respondents from several disciplines. They spoke knowledgeably and prudently about the growing problem of international refugees and internally displaced people (IDP’s) as well as the complexitites facing receiving countries.

I’m also interested about your comments about persecuted Christians. That great pro-life president George W. Bush in his infinite wisdom has created an international refugee crisis in the Middle East and Iraq - 2 million people forced out of the country, 2.5 million displaced within Iraq and a persecuted Christian minority which has experienced far more threats and danger than under the tyrant Hussein. Not to wise do dis the pope…

This is another reason why I simply refuse to vote for a politician who advertises him or herself as “pro-life”. I want to know what that really means across a whole array of issues. I recognize your concern but we as Catholics simply cannot be single issue voters.

And to be honest - I’d rather support practical pro-life activities on the ground finding ways to educate against abortion while at the same time supporting means to help single women faced with crisis pregnancies find the necessary support so abortion will not be necessary. Who knows when and if the legislation will change…though of course all of us hope soon.

 

[archangel04]

Archangel:

Your comments re: “choices” refugee make fly in the face of testimony of people who work with refugees. They’re more inclined to talk about being “forced” out of their countries by war, poverty, persecution, environmental decay (see esp. sub-Saharan Africans) . No one leaves their home of origin simply based on “choice”. I’m not sure who is spreading this absurd calculation other than someone who either really doesn’t get it or has a vested interest and agenda intended to exploit the average person’s lack of knowledge about these problems for some other nefarious purpose. Are you serious? Atleast the OP makes statements that seem much more educated than yours, and if you read some of the post you would see that I would agree with the OP on some very good points. You on the other hand have the mentality that we should all believe on your way. You are right I don’t work with refugees and if I could I would, but philosophically speaking a living person will always have a choise wether to stay and fight or flee. An unborn child does not have that choise because the mother can choose to kill him/her. So no one leaves their home of orgin? My parents came to America for a better life, they chose to move and leave what they knew most of their young lives behind, because they chose to have a better life here in a America, so yeah people do choose to leave their home of orgin. Again I know it’s not the same who are facing crisis, but when we weigh the both sided, unborn (no choice what so ever) or a refugee (has a choise to stay or move on to look for a better life) see where I am comming from?

Joseph, Mary and Jesus - the Christian paradigm for those who are refugees didn’t simply “choose” to leave Judea-Palestine. They fled for their very lives. Same was true of the early Christians who fled Roman persecution.**Tell that to S.S. Peter & Paul, or St Ignatious and other martyrs, they chose not to flee, but instead to face the beast head on. **

Also sorry to see that you simply discard Boston College because of the problems “those people” have. The anthology of essays on the plight and needs of refugees drew respondents from several disciplines. They spoke knowledgeably and prudently about the growing problem of international refugees and internally displaced people (IDP’s) as well as the complexitites facing receiving countries.Well that’s my humble opinion and I stick to it unless I see differently from them, does not make me any less of a Catholic

I’m also interested about your comments about persecuted Christians. That great pro-life president George W. Bush in his infinite wisdom has created an international refugee crisis in the Middle East and Iraq - 2 million people forced out of the country, 2.5 million displaced within Iraq and a persecuted Christian minority which has experienced far more threats and danger than under the tyrant Hussein. Not to wise do dis the pope…Here we go, listen Obama lover, oh wait did I even ask if you support Obama? Well it does not matter since you already assumed that I support the “great and wise” G. W. Bush Never once did I mention I support republicans 100% nor did I ever mention I was all about G. Bush

This is another reason why I simply refuse to vote for a politician who advertises him or herself as “pro-life”. I want to know what that really means across a whole array of issues. I recognize your concern but we as Catholics simply cannot be single issue voters.

And to be honest - I’d rather support practical pro-life activities on the ground finding ways to educate against abortion while at the same time supporting means to help single women faced with crisis pregnancies find the necessary support so abortion will not be necessary. Who knows when and if the legislation will change…though of course all of us hope soon.
And who says this isn’t what many pro-lifers fight for? We are asking to ban abortion, but to also have resources for women especially those who are raped to be available for them so that the consideration of abortion does not even come into their mind

 

[kimmielittle]

I completly agree with you. I always find it funny when “liberals” not even sure if that word applies anymore, make Jeusus as some free spirit hippie. Yet he clearly states that he did not come to this world to bring peace, but becuse of him father would go against son, and brother against brother… Another thing I always keep hearing from these groups is about “the commong good” yet I never get a clear definition on what do they mean by that

Hiyas

The “Common Good” depends on who’s mouth it comes from. It has been BENT beyond recognition.

Here is an example:

Hillary: We’ll take your money for 'common good’

Senator speaks to wealthy taxpayers at San Francisco fund-raiser

Posted: June 29, 2004
5:00 pm Eastern

 © 2010 WorldNetDaily.com

Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the “common good.”
Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaign.
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson told WorldNetDaily that Americans should take careful note of Clinton’s remarks.
“This is John Kerry’s Democratic party,” she said. “Small-business owners and taxpayers all across America should be very, very concerned.”
Kerry and Clinton, Iverson said, are people who “believe the government knows how to spend your own money better than you do.”
Iverson acknowledged Clinton’s use of the term “common good” was telling, evoking the language of Karl Marx, who envisioned a society that distributes wealth “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”
In her book, “Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” the late author Barbara Olson wrote, in Clinton’s “formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology.”
Olson described the senator growing up as a “budding Leninist” who “understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost.”
The Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Tax Reform responded to Clinton’s remarks, saying, “When it comes to tax policy, liberal politicians often try to hide their true colors.”
“There you have it: Hillary Clinton, the soul of the Democratic Party, talking about taxpayers’ money like it’s hers,” said Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist. “What insufferable arrogance – it’s as though our taxes are hers to spend!”

wnd.com/?pageId=25332

The “Common Good”. “Mitigate”…and a few other choice words are used to supposedly add weight to arguments. They do not…they are rhetoric void of evidence.

They used it in Roe V Wade…for the Common Good of a pregnant Woman’s rights…To “mitigate” the injustice God presented on Women who were attributed body parts and functions to bear children. Has the 'Common Good" or “mitigation” been achieved?

It was used in the Holocaust…The ‘Common Good" to preserve the bloodlines and “Mitigate” contamination. Has the “Common Good” or Mitigation’ been achieved.?

Did Hillary’s Keeping the Tax for the “Common Good”…Get America back on its feet?

How did they “mitigate’” problems at hand?

Who do these words / rhetoric serve?

 

[kimmielittle]

Regarding climate change - it is NOT obvious that scientists disagree - there are a few by % who are vocal about there being no anthroprogenic factors

**SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - **Excerpt: “Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus.’”(LINK)

A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. Excerpt: “There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm.” (LINK) -

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

 

[kimmielittle]

What’s the difference? I am simply astounded by your comment because it is, by now, legendary that the interaction of many “Catholic” organizations (like CRS and Catholic Charities) with various and sundry political groups and community organizers, ARE, under the guise of “social justice, family planning and women’s reproductive health,” funding abortions and providing contraception on an international scale. I suggest you research the ties between CRS and the Gates and Howard Buffet Foundations which are two of the wealthiest and most anti-life forces in the world and the very greatest promoters of population control which is being done hand-in-hand with government. Also see the community organizing of IAF and their “political work” (by their own admission) which has been funded in the past by our bishops. The links have been posted over and over again on various threads in this forum, so I won’t even bother.

The plea of ignorance from the episcopate that they did not know these groups fund causes antithetical to the most basic of church teaching, is, quite frankly, getting a little thin by now. Cooperation with evil or tolerance of the same is not an option for us.

Regarding climate change, it is obvious that even the scientists do not agree, so with that level of uncertainty, I’m a little confused as to why the progressives in the Church have been so adamant about this particular subject. Again, it brings the question to mind……WHO are they listening to? We know the political progressives are working adamantly on Cap and Trade which will significantly impact all our lives by the sheer cost. So I’m trying to reconcile in my own mind the contradiction of supporting Cap and Trade in conjunction with protecting a global climate and showing concern for ALL of God’s people, especially the poor and how they will fare in the cold when they have the least capability of all to heat their homes and stay alive.

Brilliantly stated:thumbsup:

 

[kimmielittle]

One of the things that makes discussions like this difficult are accusations about association and connections that some believe, and others do not. I have seen first hand the tremendous good CRS does in the world - which I believe should make every Catholic feel proud. The lives of men, women and children around the US are improved daily with the dedication of Catholic Charities. From what I have personally seen these organizations have not only maintained the Catholic values of all life is sacred, but do so with limited resources and unlimited faith.

Evidently The USCCB Bishops don’t agree with you.

Why else would they DE-FUND these organizations.
ACORN humanevents.com/article.php?id=34070
The Chinese Progressive Association (Defunded in response to this report)
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights (Defunded for 2009-2010)
Young Workers United (Defunded in response to this report)

bellarmineveritasministry.org/campaigns/cchd/

And unbeknownst to most Catholics, almost no CCHD grants actually provide direct relief to the poor.

humanevents.com/article.php?id=34070

 

[Tigg]

One of the things that makes discussions like this difficult are accusations about association and connections that some believe, and others do not.

Accusation is a negative term. The proof is there if you choose to see and believe it. The USCCB always publishes their list of grantees. Go to that list and then to the web pages of those groups to see the political ideology the bishops are embracing. If you really are seeking “truth” I suggest you pay particular attention to the global organizations under the heading of “Development and Peace.” The network is vast and runs throughout the world under many different names. The journey must be your own but the tools are already on this forum and the necessary links have been provided. I pray discernment for all faithful Catholics that in this time of deception, we will hear only the voice of our True Shepherd.

 

[Tigg]

Evidently The USCCB Bishops don’t agree with you.

Why else would they DE-FUND these organizations.
ACORN humanevents.com/article.php?id=34070
The Chinese Progressive Association (Defunded in response to this report)
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights (Defunded for 2009-2010)
Young Workers United (Defunded in response to this report)

bellarmineveritasministry.org/campaigns/cchd/

humanevents.com/article.php?id=34070

Thank you, Kimmie and GBU! I had never seen Bishop Sheens video on true and false compassion. It was awesome and I e-mailed it to all.

 

[kimmielittle]

Thank you, Kimmie and GBU! I had never seen Bishop Sheens video on true and false compassion. It was awesome and I e-mailed it to all.

You are very welcome

 

[4elise]

Science:

The most prominent and authoritative climate change scientists tend to believe in man-made global warming, according to a survey.

The study found that an overwhelming 98 percent of researchers as a whole think that human beings are altering the climate. And those who don’t, it says, tend to be those who have published less and are less well-regarded by their peers.

The paper, published in PNAS, surveyed the work of 1,372 climate researchers. The team found that nearly all published climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change.

Read more: techeye.net/science/all-the-best-scientists-believe-in-climate-change#ixzz0t6CRZywX

**
Faith: **

The Holy Father’s message to those working on the issue of climate change (hardly a message he would make if he did not think it was something the Church should be doing)

“I wish to reflect today upon the relationship between the Creator and ourselves as guardians of His creation”, says Benedict XVI speaking English. "In so doing I also wish to offer my support to leaders of governments and international agencies who are meeting at the United Nations to discuss the urgent issue of climate change.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=97783

Charity:

Some may wish to make connections to discredit people (and Catholic organizaitons) of good will who are doing good work in the name of faith. Skeptisim is good but can lead one to have a warped view of the world seeing connections and ill will where none exist.

 

[kimmielittle]

Science:

The most prominent a

 

[kimmielittle]

Lets see what this says:

The most prominent and authoritative climate change scientists tend to believe in man-made global warming, according to a survey.

The study found that an overwhelming 98 percent of researchers as a whole think that human beings are altering the climate. And those who don’t, it says, tend to be those who have published less and are less well-regarded by their peers.

The paper, published in PNAS, surveyed the work of 1,372 climate researchers. The team found that nearly all published climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change.

The most prominent and authoritative climate change scientists

These are already climate change believers…it doesn’t say Climatologists A neutral term ]

published less and are less well-regarded by their peers.

Sooo…by this standard… most prominent and authoritative climate change scientists…are who? Those who publish frequently about what? Who make their living promoting what?

tend to believe in man-made global warming,.

Tend to believe??? Not CONVICTED ???

http://www.techeye.net/science/all-the-best-scientists-believe-in-climate-change#ixzz0t6CRZywX

 

[kimmielittle]

Science:

**
Faith: **

The Holy Father’s message to those working on the issue of climate change (hardly a message he would make if he did not think it was something the Church should be doing)

“I wish to reflect today upon the relationship between the Creator and ourselves as guardians of His creation”, says Benedict XVI speaking English. "In so doing I also wish to offer my support to leaders of governments and international agencies who are meeting at the United Nations to discuss the urgent issue of climate change.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=97783

The Holy Father concluded by inviting participants in the UN summit "to enter into their discussions constructively and with generous courage

. Indeed, we are all called to exercise** responsible stewardship** of creation, to use resources in such a way that every individual and community can live with dignity, and to develop ‘that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God’". I don’t think the Holy Father promotes fraud such as the IPCC spews or the non-transparent raw data removed. The Holy Father in fact mentions “Transparency”

Charity:

Some may wish to make connections to discredit people (and Catholic organizaitons) of good will who are doing good work in the name of faith. Skeptisim is good but can lead one to have a warped view of the world seeing connections and ill will where none exist.

This is slightly misdirected…something I have addressed to you before is misdirection

It was the USCCB who DE-FUNDED those organizations. Organizations who promote anti-Catholic Teachings .

 

[tpw]

Archangel, so Sts. Peter, Paul and Ignatius are now superior to Joseph and Mary? Is that what you’re saying? If that’s the case had Joseph and Mary “stood up to the beast” where would our salvation be? Where’s Aristotle’s distinction between foolhardiness, courage and rashness?

As the Jesuits taught me those who do not distinguish well run into grave problems.

I’m all for challenging governments - empires that are and empires that want to be. And I’ve done it to at great personal risk. That doesn’t mean it’s always wise to do so. It’s a matter of picking one’s battles.

Fine that you don’t want to listen to well-informed people discussing issues. But don’t go making rash claims masked as “knowledge” when you really don’t know what others are up against. And believe it or not sometimes listening those perceived to be “the enemy” can teach us a great deal if we’re willing to challenge our fears and biases…And by the way I mean that for all sides in the intra-church discussions.

 

[4elise]

I don’t think the Holy Father promotes fraud such as the IPCC spews or the non-transparent raw data removed. The Holy Father in fact mentions “Transparency”

This is slightly misdirected…something I have addressed to you before is misdirection

It was the USCCB who DE-FUNDED those organizations. Organizations who promote anti-Catholic Teachings .

Leaps of conclusion - assumption of misdirection - with misdirection, assuming bad intent.:ehh:… the EXACT point of this thread was to point to WHAT it is the CATHOLIC Church is saying on this topic - LIFE is what matters, population control can not be the solution, nor any other anti-LIFE agenda - some may wish to believe that there is no man made climate change, perhaps this way they do not need to make any changes in their own life,

Skepticism is good - cynicism is not.

Anyone is entitled to believe that there is no man made impact on the climate.
However to try to say that the majority of science does not point this way is just not true.
To say that the Holy Father does not speak of the importance of individuals and governments making choices that can mitigate this for the good of ALL PEOPLE is also not true.

With the Catholic Perspective engaged in this dialogue we can continue to stress what the Holy Father keeps saying - it is about the lives of ALL PEOPLE - this is the true common good that as Catholics we should be all about on this and all issues.
Blessings

 

[tpw]

Archangel:

So we agree that no political party in the U.S. is a “Catholic party”. Correct? I can go with that. Often times it’s a matter of voting and holding one’s nose. I’ve come to the personal conclusion that it comes down to a lesser of evils. I refuse to support the Republican Party in principle because of its canonization of free markets as the solution to all problems. Has never worked in the past and certainly no reason to believe it will happen in the future. And it makes “pro-life” pretty dubious when one undermines efforts of people to have a basic, decent living in which to raise a family. They can support all the pro-life causes they want - but once one is born - the "invisible hand (the middle finger) becomes what one receives.

I’ve ventured in and out of the Democratic Party because of what I’ve seen as its collective surrender to big money interests (insurance, petroleum, pharmeceuticals, trial lawyers, etc.) since the Clinton years. I also abhor the unrelenting support for exremist pro-choice forces in the party. Thank God for Dems of Life which at least recognizes the problem and tries to find constructive solutions.

We probably don’t agree over CCHD and CRS. CCHD has apparently inadvertently supported organizations which use other monies to promote abortion while using CCHD money for legitimate organizing projects. I trust and apparently most of the bishops trust that John Carr and staff are addressing the problem. Probably won’t be perfect - but one has to live with some imperfection.

CRS does extremely good work and is highly respected for its work with people facing crisis. If one is going to receive government aid then one has to lobby - that’s political reality. It’s part of doing business. And if they get money from foundations which also support abortion - so what? As a friend of mine years ago observed - “steal from the enemy”. The more money CRS gets from such foundations - the less money is available for abortion support.

Re: global climate change…as Elsie4 noted: there are a vocal minority of voices among the world’s scientific community who dispute the evidence. The real questions are a) are these disagreements among scientists over the degree of climate change taking place; b) a flat out denial that human-inspired climate change is taking place (some seem to hold that); c) the deeper question as to whose interests climate change legislation would impact.

Don’t believe for one minute that the scientific community is immune to “interpreting data” in the favor of large commercial interests. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, etc. usually don’t have the resources to support environmental changes they support. It’s usually the big, corporate fat cats who have that chunk of change and the evidence is there that the anti-climate change forces drink heavily from such well.

There is evidence for that which I’d be willing to send you if you’d look at it.

Let’s pray for each other and work for a better world in accord with the totality of Catholic teaching…

 

[4elise]

Archangel:

So we agree that no political party in the U.S. is a “Catholic party”. Correct? I can go with that. Often times it’s a matter of voting and holding one’s nose. I’ve come to the personal conclusion that it comes down to a lesser of evils. I refuse to support the Republican Party in principle because of its canonization of free markets as the solution to all problems. Has never worked in the past and certainly no reason to believe it will happen in the future. And it makes “pro-life” pretty dubious when one undermines efforts of people to have a basic, decent living in which to raise a family. They can support all the pro-life causes they want - but once one is born - the "invisible hand (the middle finger) becomes what one receives.

I’ve ventured in and out of the Democratic Party because of what I’ve seen as its collective surrender to big money interests (insurance, petroleum, pharmeceuticals, trial lawyers, etc.) since the Clinton years. I also abhor the unrelenting support for exremist pro-choice forces in the party. Thank God for Dems of Life which at least recognizes the problem and tries to find constructive solutions.

We probably don’t agree over CCHD and CRS. CCHD has apparently inadvertently supported organizations which use other monies to promote abortion while using CCHD money for legitimate organizing projects. I trust and apparently most of the bishops trust that John Carr and staff are addressing the problem. Probably won’t be perfect - but one has to live with some imperfection.

CRS does extremely good work and is highly respected for its work with people facing crisis. If one is going to receive government aid then one has to lobby - that’s political reality. It’s part of doing business. And if they get money from foundations which also support abortion - so what? As a friend of mine years ago observed - “steal from the enemy”. The more money CRS gets from such foundations - the less money is available for abortion support.

Re: global climate change…as Elsie4 noted: there are a vocal minority of voices among the world’s scientific community who dispute the evidence. The real questions are a) are these disagreements among scientists over the degree of climate change taking place; b) a flat out denial that human-inspired climate change is taking place (some seem to hold that); c) the deeper question as to whose interests climate change legislation would impact.

Don’t believe for one minute that the scientific community is immune to “interpreting data” in the favor of large commercial interests. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, etc. usually don’t have the resources to support environmental changes they support. It’s usually the big, corporate fat cats who have that chunk of change and the evidence is there that the anti-climate change forces drink heavily from such well.

There is evidence for that which I’d be willing to send you if you’d look at it.

Let’s pray for each other and work for a better world in accord with the totality of Catholic teaching…

Like you I can not hold to any political party’s agenda - A good read is God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It by Jim Wallis - I learned about him from Fr. Ronald Rolheiser, O.M.I - in his book Against an Infinite Horizon: The Finger of God in Our Everyday Lives - Blessings!

 

[Tigg]

**Like you I can not hold to any political party’s agenda **- A good read is God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It by Jim Wallis - I learned about him from Fr. Ronald Rolheiser, O.M.I - in his book Against an Infinite Horizon: The Finger of God in Our Everyday Lives

Then perhaps you should not read the likes of Jim Wallis who has been quoted in defense of Communism.

Religion as a means to a political end is a fascinating study. Old-style socialists thought they could do away with it by killing off clergy and believers but contemporary progressives are far more sophisticated.

The election of an organizer – specifically of a faith-based Alinskyian organizer – to the US presidency is therefore of great significance. Jim Wallis, founding editor of Sojourners - a magazine and a movement from the 70s anti-war days – is a premier organizer of Christian progressives. After Obama won his bid for the US presidency, which was strongly supported by Wallis, Wallis wrote, “This election represents a new and open door for change. However, we know that President Obama will face tremendous pressure and obstacles in pursuing an agenda that addresses the moral imperatives to overcome poverty, develop renewable energy, responsibly withdraw from Iraq, and dramatically reduce the number of abortions…We must ensure that the campaign slogan of “change” becomes a new movement for change.” [Wallis, “God’s Politics Blog”, 11-5-08]

This “movement for change” is the real point of Obama’s election. **Progressives believe a desirable “social shift” first requires a “religious shift.” **“Obama,” one pundit writes, “was always more comfortable talking about his faith than John McCain, but in the Democratic primaries, he emphasized more of a ‘civil religion’—the idea that collective hope could be a political force.” [Andre C. Willis, Faith-Based Politics, The Obama Way, TheRoot.com, 11-17-08]

A civil religion – what the heck is that supposed to mean? Among sociologists, it’s a rather well-known description, however, of a set of beliefs and rituals that “sustain” political authority. This moves beyond the clumsy attempts of liberation theology to explain Our Lady of Guadalupe as the Mother of the Revolutionaries and **into a fairly pure and unadulterated worship of the State. **

catholicmediacoalition.org/religious_progressives.htm

withchrist.org/wallis.pdf

Here is a review on Fr. Rolheiser’s writings. His writings are **not **authentic Roman Catholic although they call themselves Catholic.

ourladyswarriors.org/rolheiser.htm