Catholic Perspectives on Climate Change and Population

[4elise]

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

The communism that I believe Wallis has defended is not political capitol C communism but the type that religious sisters live in - living and working together for the ‘common’ good

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

Well…not to be disrespectful to Sr. Joseph Mary Maximilian, FTI - we are all allowed to have an opinion I guess - I have not found anything in anything I’ve read by Rolheiser that I find antithetical to our faith, (it looks like her strongest objection was his comments on Christ’s celibacy being in solidarity with those who were alone)

here are some other reviews of his writings:
catholicsoncall.org/considerthis/recommended-readings/4book-review-holy-longing-ronald-rolheiser
curledup.com/amonglil.htm
nzcatholic.org.nz/viewFolder.aspx?FolderID=22
americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug2002/Feature2.asp

If you would like to start a thread to review Catholic writers - let me know -

 

[tpw]

Common good statement - relative -true to a point?

Typical Republican spin claims all calls for the common good are “Marxist”. And their alternative? Radical individualism - atomistic individuals and families disconnected from anything…

Odd, for a group who supposedly represents “tradition” they conveniently overlook the village square, the co-op movements among farmers and other movements which are part of our rich heritage…all of which called for shared responsibility.

All we have to do is cutback government and go back to ---- 1929? That’s promising…

 

[tpw]

Tigg -

You’re so far from mainline Catholicism it’s not funny. Claiming Ronald Rolheiser is not “authentically” Catholic??? Guess all those diocesean papers that carry his column on a weekly basis are not in keeping with the Magesterium either…

If Rolheiser’s discussions of spirituality are not for you - fine - don’t read them. If you want to other spiritual readers…go for them…the tradition is filled with many forms of spirituality. That’s why it’s called “Catholic” - universal, many tents…

But lay off your empty claims about Rolheiser and spare the rest of us your fear and ignorance…

 

[archangel04]

Tigg -

You’re so far from mainline Catholicism it’s not funny. Claiming Ronald Rolheiser is not “authentically” Catholic??? Guess all those diocesean papers that carry his column on a weekly basis are not in keeping with the Magesterium either…

If Rolheiser’s discussions of spirituality are not for you - fine - don’t read them. If you want to other spiritual readers…go for them…the tradition is filled with many forms of spirituality. That’s why it’s called “Catholic” - universal, many tents…

But lay off your empty claims about Rolheiser and spare the rest of us your fear and ignorance…

Tigg was not being ignorant at all. Your statments are ignorant. What is mainline Catholicism? Is it "pick and choose the teachings you want to follow? I am not republican, but Omama and the curren Democrat part is nothing but a party of death. Abortion is all they promote and they make sure it’s known.

 

[4elise]

Tigg was not being ignorant at all. Your statments are ignorant. What is mainline Catholicism? Is it "pick and choose the teachings you want to follow? I am not republican, but Omama and the curren Democrat part is nothing but a party of death. Abortion is all they promote and they make sure it’s known.

May I deflate this a bit so no one gets a slap on the hand please?

This side trip was brought to us by me - I mentioned an author - the author was criticized - I responded to that criticism - NO ONE said anything about supporting abortion, so can we avoid throwing that into the conversation - PLEASE.

tpw apparently likes the same author I do - Tigg said that the author was not authentic Roman Catholic
tpw responded (albeit strongly) that tpw did not agree with that characterization -

When these side trips happen - perhaps someone could open a thread to discuss what authors they like - what ones they believe represent or do not represent Catholic Teaching:shrug:

 

[Tigg]

Tigg -

You’re so far from mainline Catholicism it’s not funny. Claiming Ronald Rolheiser is not “authentically” Catholic??? Guess all those diocesean papers that carry his column on a weekly basis are not in keeping with the Magesterium either…

If Rolheiser’s discussions of spirituality are not for you - fine - don’t read them. If you want to other spiritual readers…go for them…the tradition is filled with many forms of spirituality. That’s why it’s called “Catholic” - universal, many tents…

But lay off your empty claims about Rolheiser and spare the rest of us your fear and ignorance…

I did not initially bring up his name, and I appreciate the fact the author of this thread was gracious enough to acknowledge that. I responded to a post regarding Rolheiser with a review I am in complete agreement with. We are each entitled to our own opinion, but you are not entitled to flame on this board. I’ve noticed many times in your posts when you don’t agree with someone, this is the tactic you use. It would be more helpful if you attacked the claim, rather than the poster.

 

[tpw]

Thanks Elise. Well-said. I was a bit strong in my response to Tigg and so I offer apologies.

However as I maintain with others rather than calling people’s Catholicism" into question perhaps slowing down and listening would help - a fault I obviously have. The constant allegations, suspicions and finger-pointing rooted in innuendo and empty political rhetoric are tiring - no matter what one’s political persuasion, understanding of holiness, etc. And it does absolutely no good.

I actually read one of the reviews Tigg sent re Rolheiser. It dealt with a claim Rolheiser made about a particular saint where he suggested she may have suffered from depression. While it’s probably not wise to psychoanalyze anyone without the proper background and less so historical figures - so what if one of the saints may have had difficulty? What’s the problem with that?

I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m not interested in following Spock-like figures of holiness which were probably never true in the first place. It’s also why Dorothy Day castigated those who wanted to call her a saint - she too was well aware of the tendency among Catholics to be content with plaster saints. They were real people who must have struggled with all kinds of things - personally as well as publicly. So what? If holiness is detached from the challenge to grow as human beings what’s the point? And are we so distrustful of God’s grace that we somehow believe God can’t work through our many imperfections and brokenness?

False images of holiness and/or unreal expectations of who the holy ones were does no one any good. One of the great gifts of 20th century scholarship has been a return to the person. Flights into abstraction sans historical grounding become escapist and not helpful in guiding others to holiness.

It’s one of the things one has to be wary of when reading spiritual classics. The great spiritual writers lived in their own time, immersed in their own culture and their own self-understanding. One has to distinguish and distinguish wisely what is a cultural accretion and therefore not helpful from wise spiritual direction. It’s not easy. That’s why people are trained in disciplines like spiritual direction, spiritual formation, etc.

The many writers who’ve sought to recover the true meaning of sanctity are to be commended.

 

[masha]

If you would like to start a thread to review Catholic writers - let me know -

I would love to start a thread to review Catholic writers, only my participation would be a bit limited now that we’re officially “off the grid”!

I didn’t read everything between my last post and this one, but what I read was fascinating, we should start a thread simply presenting our various political opinions as well (without fighting, if possible, just presenting, with questions). I’ve always loved other peoples politics. I’m glad we’re all outside the parties here! To be open about it, I was raised in a semi-anarchistic, extreme libertarian (primarily right-leaning, though not entirely) and though the anarchism has been tempered in me as I’ve grown, it still very much colours my view of government. I don’t like our government overstepping it’s bounds, and it’s bounds are very limited (in my opinion).

Tigg,
I’ve never read Mr Rolhieser, but if he is outside the Church on many things, thanks for bringing it up. Often I think we get used to seeing certain names in Catholic periodicals, and assume that because they are often published, the authors must be in line with the Church. That isn’t always the case, and in many cases, the author may be in line on some points, and lost on others. Even if Mr Rolhieser is very much in line with the church, I’d encourage people to read the reviews disagreeing with him, we as humans have such an unhealthy tendency to develope personality cults, it’s better to try to appreciate the good while understanding what might be wrong, or at least, what might encourage others toward the wrong. So thanks for passing along the information!

And then in general…
While I do believe that the climate is changing, I don’t believe we can or should stop it. The climate is always changing, and we as humans are uncomfortable being out of control. We like to think that if the climate is changing, it is because of us, and so it is something we can fix. From what I understand (as a non-scientist) it is a part of the earth’s cycle.
That being said, if we decide to sit back and watch our fellow men suffer and die as their homes are altered by this change, we are culpable. To say that the victims of abortion deserve our help and the victims of extreme poverty do not, is to decide for ourselves which is “more human”, just as those who promote abortion have decided that the mother is “more human” than her child, we are decideding that the unborn child is “more human” and more deserving of our help that the drought-stricken child in Africa. To say the African child has a choice in the matter is heartless and untrue.

I am *not saying *we have a duty to support any organization, governmental or private, governmental organizations especially are always a bad bet, but we should at least recognize that many of the victims of the droughts and famines across the world are dying through no fault of their own, pray for them, and realize that - just as our own aborted children are the victims of a government and society that refuses to see their humanity, those who die across the world are also victims of their governments, who steal the aid sent to relieve them, and a society that sees them as statistics.

Blessings to all!
Masha

 

[tpw]

Masha,

Fr. Rolheiser is not “outside” the church’s traditions in any shape, way or form. Rolheiser apparently is outside a particular “view of the church’s spiritual writing traditions” based on the interpretations of some very conservative spiritual writers who’ve apparently distorted his writing or taken things out of proportion.

If this were not the case the many, many dioceses who carry Rolheiser’s writing would not be including him. Now unless some here are going to argue that bishops are outside the tradition (questionable at best when many are very conservative themselves), then it really makes little sense to question Fr. Rolheiser’s writing.

Bottom line - if one doesn’t like him - don’t read him. But don’t cast stones at those who find his work helpful.

Re: global climate change - I recently came across a book by Sir John Houghton, a British scientist who happens to be a Christian. He is very even handed in his appraisal of global climate change. The most recent edition is from 2004 (3rd edition). While he would agree with you that the climate is always changing - what he points to are the wild swings in climate change including a substantial increase in particularly violent storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

He argues that the evidence that climate change is man-made is very real. And that there are things which can be done to change the impact of these influence. He even includes a chapter on ethics - from a religious perspective - which has been well-received by people of all disciplines.

 

[masha]

Masha,

Fr. Rolheiser is not “outside” the church’s traditions in any shape, way or form. Rolheiser apparently is outside a particular “view of the church’s spiritual writing traditions” based on the interpretations of some very conservative spiritual writers who’ve apparently distorted his writing or taken things out of proportion.

If this were not the case the many, many dioceses who carry Rolheiser’s writing would not be including him. Now unless some here are going to argue that bishops are outside the tradition (questionable at best when many are very conservative themselves), then it really makes little sense to question Fr. Rolheiser’s writing.

Bottom line - if one doesn’t like him - don’t read him. But don’t cast stones at those who find his work helpful.

Re: global climate change - I recently came across a book by Sir John Houghton, a British scientist who happens to be a Christian. He is very even handed in his appraisal of global climate change. The most recent edition is from 2004 (3rd edition). While he would agree with you that the climate is always changing - what he points to are the wild swings in climate change including a substantial increase in particularly violent storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

He argues that the evidence that climate change is man-made is very real. And that there are things which can be done to change the impact of these influence. He even includes a chapter on ethics - from a religious perspective - which has been well-received by people of all disciplines.

Tpw,

I didn’t say he was outside, I simply said that being published often, even in Catholic periodicals doesn’t make one orthodox, and that even if he is very orthodox, he isn’t infalliable, and it’s always best to remind ourselves of the author’s humanity and try to understand both sides. From what I understand, he sounds within tradition, but it’s always best to question the writings of anyone.

One of my uncles was a Bishop for many years, before retiring. He was a very good man, and very obedient to the Church’s teachings, except as regards the ordination of women, there he was quite “out of the loop”. So as much as I respect our bishops, I can’t believe that they are all completely without their own biases. They’re human, after all.

As for casting stones, I’m wasn’t attempting to at all, my intention was simply to thank Tigg for presenting his side. If Fr (I didn’t realize when I wrote that he was a priest, I apologize for mis-addressing him) Rolhieser’s writing is worthwhile, it will stand up to reasonable questioning. “Questioning” that is simply an excuse for disagreement or abuse is something else entirely, obviously, and should be disregarded, but legitimate questioning is always a blessing to any author.

I’ll look into the book you mentioned and Fr. Rolhieser, as I said before, I haven’t read him, and really have no opinion one way or another about his writing. I’m not in anyway a scientist, but it definately pays to better understand the world.

I’m sorry if I came across as casting stones.
Blessings,
Masha