He’s the Pope. I am not sure if you KNOW what the Magisterium is, but I suggest you find out exactly what it is, then come back and argue that you don’t need to follow the Magisterium because Climate Change is IN the Magisterium.
I cannot describe just how insulted I am at your 2nd and 3rd comments.Which also defends Canada from a Russian and Chinese invasion.
This thread is nothing more than an excuse to support liberal politicians and an attempt to anger Trump supporters.
Again, we go back to the fundamentals: If voting Democrat for any political party is so righteous and good, why does it need anonymous third party support and why do people come to this site asking over and over if it’s okay to vote for them?
I would think the arguments for such decisions have their own merits, but for obvious reasons do not. :tsktsk:
Yes, this thread from the beginning has been a bash Trump thread. Disguised as a environmental debate.
I’ll say this:
how boring :yawn:
so what? did he claim his position is infallibly defined?
It would be good if Trump supporters could disagree with Trump on certain things, like climate change, rather than Catholics (who are Trump supporters) being “cafeteria Catholics,” ready and willing to disagree with the Pope on serious life & death matters like climate change.
You’ ve already taken action ,Lyn.
Repeating this over and over does not make it any more true. It is as much a straw man after every subsequent and banal repetition of this falsehood. As this debate started with a statement by the** Holy Father,** I think it time to get past all this defensiveness of the President.
It sounds like you are saying it is easier to be a cafeteria Catholic, than a cafeteria Republican, or cafeteria Democrat. I have sympathy for the young person who started this thread. Now don’t get me wrong. I sometimes weary of young people who think they know more than anyone else. But this poster started off with a legitimate concern addressed with respect.
Despite forum rules requiring that posts “must be polite and free of personal attacks” apparently no canard is too vile to be applied to particular groups. I guess this is all that’s left when the science doesn’t support the claims.
Sorry if my post was offensive. I wasn’t referring to the rank and file Republicans, but to the higher ups in the Republican Party, the politicians, who receive campaign money from various interest groups (as Dems do too), but in the case of fossil fuel money & the “buying” of politicians and policies it is esp insidious, at least in my books.
Whether or not it is part of Magisterial teaching doesn’t change the fact that it is a prudential judgment, and judgments, even papal ones, do not oblige our assent.*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
Just stop. I don’t care who you were referring to. If you have an argument, make it, but don’t attack people with these generic slanders. The thing about accusations like this is that even if true they are nonetheless utterly irrelevant. A statement is either true or false, and nothing in the personal history of the person who makes it changes that. Data doesn’t become invalid because the person who cites it has sold his soul to the fossil fuel industry any more than assertions can be dismissed simply because its “just” a fifteen year old kid who makes them.
THIS!!! It’s very offensive for a young person to come on here and tell me what I’m supposed to believe as a catholic. Said young person needs to learn the distinction between the Pope’s encyclicals of which there are many and infallible church teaching of which there are only a handful. I’m supposed to give the respect due to the magisterial encyclicals, but I do not have to believe them to be infallible.
There are several levels of “church teachings.” Infallible doctrines: “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith (CCC 891)” while for an ordinary doctrine we: “are to adhere to it with religious assent. (CCC 892)” So while assent is required for more than just the infallible doctrines, it is not required for prudential judgments - for opinions - which is the point relevant to this discussion.
The argument that the science is settled is made by those who know it is not, and would like the investigation to cease, because the longer this is investigated the shakier become the claims.
That is a thin distinction. Few things are "infallible. Laudatio Si is still the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is the teaching of the Holy Father. I never understood why Catholics use the word “prudential” to mean, as if it were a synonym for “optional”. It is still teaching, just as it is teaching that prudence is a cardinal virtue, the first listed of the four. So maybe we should heed what the Holy Father deems prudent.
He explains it in Laudato Si .
Neither am I,but I found this part that I would like to share from the Encyclical.
This evades the question: are you implying that Catholics have a moral obligation to assent to his position on global warming?
Given that assent is not mandatory, what else could it be other than optional?
If you feel the need to “heed” his judgments then you should by all means adhere to it, but don’t suggest that anyone else has a moral obligation to do the same. We don’t. We are obliged to give it serious consideration. We are not obliged to agree with it.