Catholicism and Climate Change

[jaserius]

Dear friends,

This is my first post on this website, thanks for your answers.

I’m a committed Catholic from Sydney, Australia, and last night I was having a good conversation with a friend who is an athiest-humanist.

He actually didn’t pit the question to me directly, but if he did, I wouldn’t actually have known what to say:

What is the Catholic Church’s position on climate change? Why aren’t more Christian leaders committed to climate change, when the science so clearly points out that it is real and the planet’s fate depends on the climate?

Is the answer that we are still not convinced of the science?
Or that we are already quite active?
Or that there are more pressing moral issues to be dealt with, such as abortion and other life issues?

Or is the answer that the climate is such a big thing, that it is really beyond human control, and something that is really in God’s hands?
Is the answer that the climate will change depending on the degree of sin in the world - perhaps it is changing now because of the unprecedented wholesale change in the abandonment of God in western society?

Thanks for your help, God bless,

Jason.

 

[Ahimsa]

The Vatican yesterday added its voice to a rising chorus of warnings from churches around the world that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God’s will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic church must become far greener.

At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to “respect creation” while “focusing on the needs of sustainable development”.

The Pope’s message follows a series of increasingly strong statements about climate change and the environment, including a warning earlier this year that “disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa”.

Observers said yesterday that the Catholic church is no longer split between those who advocate development and those who say the environment is the priority. Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, head of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, said: “For environment … read Creation. The mastery of man over Creation must not be despotic or senseless. Man must cultivate and safeguard God’s Creation.”

 

[Ender]

What is the Catholic Church’s position on climate change?

The theory of man made climate change is just that, a scientific theory, about which the Church - properly - has no position.

Is the answer that we are still not convinced of the science?

Personally, no, I am not convinced but to ask the question is to recognize why the Church has no position. It is a question of science, not faith.

Ender

 

[jay29]

Climate change by humans is junk science.

 

[Stylites]

Hide the Decline: youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

 

[po18guy]

One thing you can do is ask this friend on what moral basis climate change actually matters. The godless have no moral foundation, and what moral standards they possess, they have learned from the Judeo-Christian society that surrounds them. Ask what the foundation for moral judgments is. You will not get a clear answer. You know that right and wrong are inflexible standards set by God. In the case of the godless, they set their own, personal standards. So, why should their standard apply to you?

Secondly, we live on God’s created earth, so we are called to be good stewards of it. We must use its resources responsibly. There is no requirement that we jump onto any secular political movement that claims to have the earth’s welfare at heart. Many of these organizations are driven by the lust for power and money.

The “science” surrounding the current hysteria is highly questionable, and the motives behind the movement are becoming clear. Population control via abortion, contraception and euthanasia are increasingly seen as motivators behind this movement. Again, there may be consensus within some groups that man is indeed altering the climate. However, the earth’s climate changed much more profoundly before man existed, or became a factor. What caused that, then?

The strongest action that you may take to protect the environment is personal. Seeking legislation which forces others to conform to your opinion of caring for the environment makes you more important than them. I don’t think our Lord sees it that way. Be sensible in your own life, as you answer for your sins, not those of others.

 

[VetA]

when the science so clearly points out that it is real and the planet’s fate depends on the climate?

Is the answer that we are still not convinced of the science?
Or that we are already quite active?
Or that there are more pressing moral issues to be dealt with, such as abortion and other life issues?

the science supports nothing of the sort, its has been proven to be a hoax and that many scientists have falsified data or over exaggerated points. google climategate.

i wonder when the global cooling/global warming/climate change monster will go away and leave us in peace

 

[kimmielittle]

One thing you can do is ask this friend on what moral basis climate change actually matters. The godless have no moral foundation, and what moral standards they possess, they have learned from the Judeo-Christian society that surrounds them. Ask what the foundation for moral judgments is. You will not get a clear answer. You know that right and wrong are inflexible standards set by God. In the case of the godless, they set their own, personal standards. So, why should their standard apply to you?

Secondly, we live on God’s created earth, so we are called to be good stewards of it. We must use its resources responsibly. There is no requirement that we jump onto any secular political movement that claims to have the earth’s welfare at heart. Many of these organizations are driven by the lust for power and money.

The “science” surrounding the current hysteria is highly questionable, and the motives behind the movement are becoming clear. Population control via abortion, contraception and euthanasia are increasingly seen as motivators behind this movement. Again, there may be consensus within some groups that man is indeed altering the climate. However, the earth’s climate changed much more profoundly before man existed, or became a factor. What caused that, then?

The strongest action that you may take to protect the environment is personal. Seeking legislation which forces others to conform to your opinion of caring for the environment makes you more important than them. I don’t think our Lord sees it that way. Be sensible in your own life, as you answer for your sins, not those of others.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[po18guy]

i wonder when the global cooling/global warming/climate change monster will go away and leave us in peace

Since it has, at its core, the death of innocents, or the prevention of God’s will through contraception, it is just the latest tactic of the evil one. This is not condemnation of those in the movement, only evidence of the impetus for the movement.

 

[VetA]

Since it has, at its core, the death of innocents, or the prevention of God’s will through contraception, it is just the latest tactic of the evil one. This is not condemnation of those in the movement, only evidence of the impetus for the movement.

you know i was thinking that exact same thing when i first posted on this thread… i just didnt want to spark some huge debate

 

[po18guy]

you know i was thinking that exact same thing when i first posted on this thread… i just didnt want to spark some huge debate

Father Corapi encourages us to know our enemy. Before we know him, we must first recognize him. We know him by his fruits.

If controversy arrives, so be it. The world hates Truth. If it also hates us, we must remember that it hated Him first. Population control does not come from God. There remains only one other source, who was a murderer from the beginning.

 

[manualman]

Back to the OP question, you really need to look underneath your question for a larger one. Do you know the difference between a legitimate religion and a cult? Cults seeks to control every aspect of their adherent’s lives. Catholicism does nothing of the sort. The Catholic Church takes no official position on Global Warming because she has not been given any jurisdiction or supernatural charism for discerning the difference between good science and junk science on the matter. The Catholic Church DOES teach that it is a form of injustice to live in such a way that deprives others or future generations of adequate natural resources, but it is the prudential judgement of scientists and civic leaders that must sift fact from fantasy on the matter.

As you can see here, there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue.

 

[po18guy]

Back to the OP question, you really need to look underneath your question for a larger one. Do you know the difference between a legitimate religion and a cult? Cults seeks to control every aspect of their adherent’s lives. Catholicism does nothing of the sort. The Catholic Church takes no official position on Global Warming because she has not been given any jurisdiction or supernatural charism for discerning the difference between good science and junk science on the matter. The Catholic Church DOES teach that it is a form of injustice to live in such a way that deprives others or future generations of adequate natural resources, but it is the prudential judgement of scientists and civic leaders that must sift fact from fantasy on the matter.

As you can see here, there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue.

I would add to this only that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and that she introduced the scientific method - both of which may be called upon to decide the legitimacy of the world’s assertions.

 

[manualman]

I would add to this only that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and that she introduced the scientific method - both of which may be called upon to decide the legitimacy of the world’s assertions.

I’m all for remembering the glories of our past as much or moreso than the warts, but the scientific method as we know it today evolved slowly over more than just the last 2,000 years. The people of the catholic church and her teachings/principles were surely supportive of and nurturing to its development, but to claim exclusive authorship is a bit much (though I do love those Catholics Come Home Commercials). The ancient Greeks, Romans and later the muslims made rather important contributions too. Ultimately THEIR positive and constructive contributions came from the same source. God himself is the source of all that is true and good. The Church is his instrument and his means of revealing much about himself to man.

 

[po18guy]

I’m all for remembering the glories of our past as much or moreso than the warts, but the scientific method as we know it today evolved slowly over more than just the last 2,000 years. The people of the catholic church and her teachings/principles were surely supportive of and nurturing to its development, but to claim exclusive authorship is a bit much (though I do love those Catholics Come Home Commercials). The ancient Greeks, Romans and later the muslims made rather important contributions too. Ultimately THEIR positive and constructive contributions came from the same source. God himself is the source of all that is true and good. The Church is his instrument and his means of revealing much about himself to man.

Toss money into the mix and all is brought to ruin. And, there are billions at stake in the climate change arena. Point being that we cannot turn the future of creation over to non-creationists.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Climate Change has been around for millions of years before Christianity and will continue to cycle hot-cold until the end of days regardless of who dives into the money pit. I’d rather just burn my money than give it Charltons like Al Gore and company.

 

[Tigg]

The Vatican yesterday added its voice to a rising chorus of warnings from churches around the world that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God’s will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic church must become far greener.

At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to “respect creation” while “focusing on the needs of sustainable development”.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but the term “sustainable development” gives me cold chills. Haven’t ecologists tied this to limiting the population of the planet, ergo contraception and abortion?

I’m very suspicious of certain comments by the clergy especially since I recently attended a retreat day given by a priest which ended up with us praising the earth and creation rather than the CreaTOR! I’m all for respecting the planet, fighting pollution and being good stewards, but this whole green thing has gone way over the top. I received a handout at this same retreat in which they actually defined global warming. I mean this retreat was based upon the whole Al Gore thing!

 

[Newbie2]

Dear friends,

This is my first post on this website, thanks for your answers.

I’m a committed Catholic from Sydney, Australia, and last night I was having a good conversation with a friend who is an athiest-humanist.

He actually didn’t pit the question to me directly, but if he did, I wouldn’t actually have known what to say:

What is the Catholic Church’s position on climate change? Why aren’t more Christian leaders committed to climate change, when the science so clearly points out that it is real and the planet’s fate depends on the climate?

Climate change happens whether or not we, as humans, participate in it. I assume that you mean “man-made” climate change. If so, the conclusions made by many scientists today are indeed Junk Science, based more on political and financial motives than a desire to find the truth.

Is the answer that we are still not convinced of the science? In part. Stewardship of the Earth has been addressed by the Vatican and by many other Christian leaders.
Or that we are already quite active? Active in doing what?
Or that there are more pressing moral issues to be dealt with, such as abortion and other life issues?

If we were really destroying the planet, that would certainly be a pressing issue, no?

Or is the answer that the climate is such a big thing, that it is really beyond human control, and something that is really in God’s hands?

Not entirely either. We ***could ***probably wipe out all life on the planet if we really tried to. Think of all the nukes that are available. But I think, on the other hand, that our puny efforts do little or nothing to affect the climate.

Is the answer that the climate will change depending on the degree of sin in the world - perhaps it is changing now because of the unprecedented wholesale change in the abandonment of God in western society?

No, not until the end times, anyway. That’s Old Testament theology.

Thanks for your help, God bless,

Jason.

 

[mchale]

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but the term “sustainable development” gives me cold chills. Haven’t ecologists tied this to limiting the population of the planet, ergo contraception and abortion?

To me sustainable development is a question of how we exploit resources and how we build and grow. For example, continuing to live 50 miles from work, and driving an SUV to work every day is not sustainable in the long term.

On the flip side, “sustainable growth” does give me the chills.

–
Bill

 

[manualman]

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but the term “sustainable development” gives me cold chills. Haven’t ecologists tied this to limiting the population of the planet, ergo contraception and abortion?

Do not fear this buzz word. There are two entirely different and easily confusable movements that operate under the “green” banner. The older one is best called the Conservation Movement that started in the late 1800s in the US (and possibly earlier elsewhere). This is the idea that we have to be careful of being stupid and wasteful with the resources of the earth and instead manage them wisely for the long term benefit of man. This movement gave birth to national parks, wildlife management, managed forestry, fish hatcheries, etc. As its core, it sees no inherent conflict between man and nature.

The newer (and now more politically powerful) movement is the “environmentalist movement.” This groups sees humans as alien invaders into the otherwise perfect and stable balance of nature that disrupt and destroy everything they touch. To them there IS no “healthy” form of logging, no ethical hunting practices, no acceptable standards for mining, etc. All exploitation of natural resources is bad to these people. They are the scary ones, the ones who have adopted the Earth as their goddess religion after abandoning christianity.

Sustainable development is usually a manifestation of the former group, a good thing. It looks for ways to develop that have fewer negative impacts on nature. Since WWII we’ve had ridiculously UNsustainable development in the USA. In most places it is actually ILLEGAL to build low impact walkable communities. Live in a suburb and need a gallon of milk? Forget walking, you need a car. It’s not by accident. Local zoning laws prohibit a convenience store from being built on a corner on your street. Same goes for a myriad of things. The same storm sewers that prevent standing water in your back yard are creating massive surges of water every time it rains that are eroding the daylights out of our creeks and rivers, muddying the waters and killing off good fish species leaving only carp and bullhead. Would it be so awful if water stood in our backyards for 8 hours after a rainfall to prevent this? Do people really NEED a half acre of short grass to mow at every house? Wouldn’t we be better off with smaller yards and more parks? Why does every residential street need to be lit up like daytime all night? Why are there sidewalks on both sides of non busy streets? These are the questions of sustainable design.