Election over, administration unleashes new rules

[livingwordunity]

I quoted Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation For The Doctrine of The Faith. Its an issue of individual conscience and no further proof is required IMO. Again, this isn’t an abortion thread.

You didn’t quote him saying that the lives of people born are worth more than the lives of babies in the womb. You totally made that up, and it goes totally against the teachings of the Church.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Again with this? How about re-reading the last two words of his statement.

According to some people, there ARE no proportionate reasons. I don’t think he’d have made the statement if he didn’t think there were any. And in something as individual as voting, the individual’s judgment is inescapably called upon to be the arbiter.

That is what I have found to be final word in the argument.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You didn’t quote him saying that the lives of people born are worth more than the lives of babies in the womb. You totally made that up, and it goes totally against the teachings of the Church.

I quoted him pointing out that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is NOT necessarily against Church teaching and that a Catholic CAN vote for a pro-choice candidate* so long as they are not voting for them for that reason*. The terms “proportionate reasoning” are left intentionally vague to render the issue a matter of individual conscience. There is zero actual Church teaching or doctrine that renders my view invalid; only the opinions of some others. You have yours but, in the end, they’re all just opinions and no one is bound by them. The Church remains officially silent on matters of personal conscience for a reason; its not in a position to weigh every issue everywhere which is why it has no specific voting requirements built into doctrine. Its all vague.

For example, the Church condemns communism, socialism, and capitalism as social perversions in the Catechism and in general terms but it doesn’t really say who or what system you should vote for. You have to vote for whichever option you have before you that YOU find most equitable and YOU find most consistent with Catholic teaching despite the fact that any option you select will be one of the three. There is no such thing as a perfect Catholic candidate which follows all Church doctrine to a T…at least not one I’ve ever seen. So you have to vote for whichever you believe will implement policies in a way that is most consistent with Catholic social and economic doctrine. The Church will never officially tell you who that is.

Whatever your views of Obama or his rules; most Catholics chose to vote for him and they are well within their moral rights as Catholics and their civil rights as American citizens to do so. You may not like him or his positions but no one should accuse people of being unCatholic, unfaithful, or sinful for exercising their right to choice through individual conscience permitted by the Church.

 

[livingwordunity]

I quoted him pointing out that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is NOT necessarily against Church teaching and that a Catholic CAN vote for a pro-choice candidate* so long as they are not voting for them for that reason*. The terms “proportionate reasoning” are left intentionally vague to render the issue a matter of individual conscience. There is zero actual Church teaching or doctrine that renders my view invalid; only opinions. You have yours but, in the end, they are just opinions and no one is bound by them. The Church remains officially silent on matters of personal conscience for a reason; its not in a position to weigh every issue everywhere which is why it has no specific voting requirements built into doctrine. Its all vague.

For example, the Church condemns communism, socialism, and capitalism as social perversions in the Catechism and in general terms but it doesn’t really say who or what system you should vote for. You have vote for whichever option you have before you that YOU find most equitable and YOU find most consistent with Catholic teaching despite the fact that any option you select will be one of the three.

You also made a statement that is the exact opposite of what is taught clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in papal encyclicals. “Proportionate reasons” is only vague to those who wish to take these two words and separate them from everything else taught by the Church with regard to the evil of abortion. Pope John Paul II gives an example of what would be “proportionate reasons” and it is nothing like your interpretation. Here it is:

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. … In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” [Gospel of Life 73]

To relate this example of “proportionate reasons” to the recent election, one could vote for Romney without sinning because although Romney said he would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest this only accounts for about 1% of abortions which would limit the harm of the current abortion laws which have no restrictions.

You said:
“the concerns of those already born outweigh those which aren’t”

But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
“Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.” - 2274, CCC

Can you see the direct contradiction of what you said with what is taught by the Church?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Can you see the direct contradiction of what you said with what is taught by the Church?

Nope, especially in light of the alternative and its still a matter of individual conscience. I think we’ve both made our views clear. Lets leave it at that.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nope, especially in light of the alternative and its still a matter of individual conscience. I think we’ve both made our views clear. Lets leave it at that.

You said:
“the concerns of those already born outweigh those which aren’t”

But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
“Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.” - 2274, CCC

You can’t see how these two statements contradict?

 

[livingwordunity]

Nope, especially in light of the alternative and its still a matter of individual conscience. I think we’ve both made our views clear. Lets leave it at that.

We’ll leave at abortion is murder.

 

[RobbyS]

What pray, is wrong with having laws for the health and safety of workers? What is wrong with trying to prevent pollution by big business where money often ‘talks’ and is the only ‘raison d’etre’? What is wrong with trying to prevent global warming?
From the European side of the pond, I too shall be very interested to see what type of foreign policy changes we shall see…what ones are you expecting?

What is wrong is that we have let law replace customs and personal relationships. If you weren’t alive sixty years ago, you may not realize how much for freedom of action we had then. As for global warming is concerned, how much is this is actually within human control? How much of this is driven by the desire of scientists to obtain funding for projects of dubious worth? We have limited faith in government, but our faith in science boils down in so many cases to a credulous acceptance of dubious theories.

 

[estesbob]

Nope, especially in light of the alternative and its still a matter of individual conscience. I think we’ve both made our views clear. Lets leave it at that.

And what is your conscience formed by?

 

[Suudy]

I quoted him pointing out that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is NOT necessarily against Church teaching and that a Catholic CAN vote for a pro-choice candidate* so long as they are not voting for them for that reason*. The terms “proportionate reasoning” are left intentionally vague to render the issue a matter of individual conscience. There is zero actual Church teaching or doctrine that renders my view invalid; only the opinions of some others. You have yours but, in the end, they’re all just opinions and no one is bound by them. The Church remains officially silent on matters of personal conscience for a reason; its not in a position to weigh every issue everywhere which is why it has no specific voting requirements built into doctrine. Its all vague.

As already pointed out by livingwordunity, it isn’t nearly as vague as you make it out to be. There are examples given.

For example, the Church condemns communism, socialism, and capitalism as social perversions in the Catechism and in general terms but it doesn’t really say who or what system you should vote for.

First, you need to accurately represent the Catechism:
2525 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
Again, it isn’t nearly as vague as you make it out to be. The Catechism rejects the extremes, and I don’t see anyone on the right suggesting that we regulate the economy “solely by the law of the marketplace.” However, I do see suggestions on the left of “centralized planning,” especially with regard to “social justice and welfare”, namely in health care.

There is no such thing as a perfect Catholic candidate which follows all Church doctrine to a T…at least not one I’ve ever seen.

Who has suggested there is, or has been, such a candidate?

So you have to vote for whichever you believe will implement policies in a way that is most consistent with Catholic social and economic doctrine. The Church will never officially tell you who that is.

As long a well formed conscience uses proportionate reason. If one has difficulty discerning which is more important, protecting the lives of innocent human beings or providing “social justice and welfare”, I submit that there is failure somewhere either in conscience or in application of reason.

You may not like him or his positions but no one should accuse people of being unCatholic, unfaithful, or sinful for exercising their right to choice through individual conscience permitted by the Church.

I’m certainly not accusing anyone of such. Nor am I seeing a lot of that here. However, I certainly do think poorly formed consciences is the biggest problem here. If people can’t tell the difference between intentional destruction of human life and unintended suffering, there is a real problem. And to explain it all away with a wave of the hand by attributing it to conscience is not an excuse, nor does it justify such a vote. These people may not be “unCatholic, unfaithful, or sinful”, but I think they certainly are gravely mistaken.

 

[Walcot]

Don’t forget all the actually innocent people in the US executed – some we find out about later, other we may never find out about. Sort of reminds me of Jesus and his execution.

Many of the supposedly anti-abortion people in America are actually pretty much pro-death in nearly every other area of their lives. It’s very easy to be anti-abortion, when it’s no skin off one’s nose. Most anti-abortion people are also anti tax and anti-environment; they are against helping save the lives of the children once they are born, and also against helping reduce miscarriages caused by environmental harms. In other words, they are NOT really pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, and I for one suspect they are not really anti-abortion, but just use that issue to support their de facto pro-death political candidates’ other nefarious agenda, and/or to feel self-satisfied.

One of the first things they do is deny local pollution causes miscarriages and other harms, and I’m sure there will be those denying the findings of this report: The Toll from Coal (since that is the response here re env regs) – see catf.us/resources/publications/view/138 .

They also deny climate change and all its harms and killing of people. They think it’s a hoax to control people, since few are willing to lift their fingers to turn off lights not in use or the myriad of other things we can and should be doing out of the goodness of our hearts that not only saves us money, but also saves lives by reducing local, regional (acid rain), and global env harms.

So if the gov wants to inspire us to do the right thing by, say, taking away the subsidies and tax-breaks from coal, oil and gas, people yell out “they’re putting us in chains,” bec they are (let’s face it) addicted to these harmful substances, as Bush rightly said before leaving office.

Good for him. Eating low on the food chain is not only good for one’s health and reduces killing of animals (and St. Francis said those who would treat animals badly would also treat their fellow men badly), it also reduces environmental harms that kill and harm people, and allows many more people to get a healthy diet from the same amount of land and resources used. It could help solve the world hunger problem. We do have some Catholic vegans right here on CAF, but they are not many (see forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=90 ).

I just want you to know that I have NEVER considered Americans to be Christian. At first as a small kid I thought they were just being hypocrits – going to church on Sunday, then promptly forgetting what they heard on Monday. However, as a teen I began to realize they are not hypocrits, they are very true to their religion – Americanism. And now in old age I well understand the roots of this Americanism religion. It is in the 18 c. Enlightenment anti-gov, anti-Church philosophies which developed in Europe and perhaps for good reason at the time (due to increasing socio-political complexity and unreasonable and excessive oppression by the gov and the Church), but were taken over to a much higher degree here in the U.S. and have been taken to an extreme blind ally of world destruction. Many Americans are incapable of thinking outside the anti-gov, anti-Church Enlightenment box, even though the sciences and social sciences have long left behind the mistaken aspects of Enlightenment thinking.

I can’t tell you how I felt when I read this…Altho’ I no longer follow your faith, I joined this forum to try and learn what Catholicism is about - to ‘re-learn’ if you like, because I was brought up a Catholic (with a C of E mother).I am interested to understand how people think in religions.
I don’t recognise anything from my past here! I don’t recognise these hard uncompromising attitudes.
I recently spent 2 weeks with my old US/UK exchange student friend from our teenage years 40 years ago! We both farm, have families and have been teachers - we have always shared the same basic values but it’s interesting to see how we have gone opposite ways in politics and beliefs…it’s hard to describe - we are the greatest of friends still…we can discuss and listen which is great. Our societies are so different I sometimes wonder if, had we swopped places in our teens, would I have been like her and she me?
I don’t think so because I was questioning religious beliefs when I was a child, but it’s possible - with society/peer pressure.
My worst experience in US was hearing the lies and misinformation about global warming, my country’s health service and even evolution. My friend came out with all the old chestnuts…all answerable, but all still churned out by the Right propagandists as ‘absolute proofs’. What they all said about Obama filled me with compassion for the poor guy!!
Thank you for making me realise that not all American Catholics are as hard as they sometimes sound in this forum…perhaps some of these views are disproportionate?
The church of England has a saying…We believe in life before death.

 

[Carlan]

Don’t forget all the actually innocent people in the US executed – some we find out about later, other we may never find out about. Sort of reminds me of Jesus and his execution.

At any rate it is found that the death penalty either increases the murder rate in the states that institute it, or has no effect on lowering the murder rate. The message society gets from the death penalty is — if you don’t like someone, kill 'em. And we Americans are very famous for that. Shoot first and ask questions later. Don’t mess with Texas. Any Hatfield (or Iraqi or Muslim-looking person) will do.

I for one was totally against the war in Iraq, and also Desert Storm, which also needlessly killed a tremendous number of people…many who had Saddam Hussein’s gun at their backs, forcing them to line up along the border. One Iraqi-American guy was just there in Iraq visiting his grandmother when he was conscripted and forced into that line up – he even waved his University of Chicago sweatshirt. All killed and mowed down. I REALLY can’t understand why Americans are not totally ashamed of that. Except we are a kill, kill, kill people, starting with Native Americans. It’s just who we are.

Many of the supposedly anti-abortion people in America are actually pretty much pro-death in nearly every other area of their lives. It’s very easy to be anti-abortion, when it’s no skin off one’s nose. Most anti-abortion people are also anti tax and anti-environment; they are against helping save the lives of the children once they are born, and also against helping reduce miscarriages caused by environmental harms. In other words, they are NOT really pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, and I for one suspect they are not really anti-abortion, but just use that issue to support their de facto pro-death political candidates’ other nefarious agenda, and/or to feel self-satisfied.

One of the first things they do is deny local pollution causes miscarriages and other harms, and I’m sure there will be those denying the findings of this report: The Toll from Coal (since that is the response here re env regs) – see catf.us/resources/publications/view/138 .

They also deny climate change and all its harms and killing of people. They think it’s a hoax to control people, since few are willing to lift their fingers to turn off lights not in use or the myriad of other things we can and should be doing out of the goodness of our hearts that not only saves us money, but also saves lives by reducing local, regional (acid rain), and global env harms.

So if the gov wants to inspire us to do the right thing by, say, taking away the subsidies and tax-breaks from coal, oil and gas, people yell out “they’re putting us in chains,” bec they are (let’s face it) addicted to these harmful substances, as Bush rightly said before leaving office.

Good for him. Eating low on the food chain is not only good for one’s health and reduces killing of animals (and St. Francis said those who would treat animals badly would also treat their fellow men badly), it also reduces environmental harms that kill and harm people, and allows many more people to get a healthy diet from the same amount of land and resources used. It could help solve the world hunger problem. We do have some Catholic vegans right here on CAF, but they are not many (see forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=90 ).

I just want you to know that I have NEVER considered Americans to be Christian. At first as a small kid I thought they were just being hypocrits – going to church on Sunday, then promptly forgetting what they heard on Monday. However, as a teen I began to realize they are not hypocrits, they are very true to their religion – Americanism. And now in old age I well understand the roots of this Americanism religion. It is in the 18 c. Enlightenment anti-gov, anti-Church philosophies which developed in Europe and perhaps for good reason at the time (due to increasing socio-political complexity and unreasonable and excessive oppression by the gov and the Church), but were taken over to a much higher degree here in the U.S. and have been taken to an extreme blind ally of world destruction. Many Americans are incapable of thinking outside the anti-gov, anti-Church Enlightenment box, even though the sciences and social sciences have long left behind the mistaken aspects of Enlightenment thinking.

I appreciate you having the ability and the guts to point out the opposite side of the coin.
Thanks!
Peace, Carlan

 

[Walcot]

I quoted him pointing out that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is NOT necessarily against Church teaching and that a Catholic CAN vote for a pro-choice candidate* so long as they are not voting for them for that reason*. The terms “proportionate reasoning” are left intentionally vague to render the issue a matter of individual conscience. There is zero actual Church teaching or doctrine that renders my view invalid; only the opinions of some others. You have yours but, in the end, they’re all just opinions and no one is bound by them. The Church remains officially silent on matters of personal conscience for a reason; its not in a position to weigh every issue everywhere which is why it has no specific voting requirements built into doctrine. Its all vague.

For example, the Church condemns communism, socialism, and capitalism as social perversions in the Catechism and in general terms but it doesn’t really say who or what system you should vote for. You have to vote for whichever option you have before you that YOU find most equitable and YOU find most consistent with Catholic teaching despite the fact that any option you select will be one of the three. There is no such thing as a perfect Catholic candidate which follows all Church doctrine to a T…at least not one I’ve ever seen. So you have to vote for whichever you believe will implement policies in a way that is most consistent with Catholic social and economic doctrine. The Church will never officially tell you who that is.

Whatever your views of Obama or his rules; most Catholics chose to vote for him and they are well within their moral rights as Catholics and their civil rights as American citizens to do so. You may not like him or his positions but no one should accuse people of being unCatholic, unfaithful, or sinful for exercising their right to choice through individual conscience permitted by the Church.

I remember the suffragettes who fought so hard for women to be able to vote and remember that my own grandmother wasn’t allowed to vote as a young woman. We are all part of the democracy in which we live…I taught my children that it’s their DUTY to vote in an election. In Australia, everyone is required to vote. We cannot have ‘our own perfect candidate’ who shows no compromise - that’s what some folk call a dictator.

 

[Carlan]

I remember the suffragettes who fought so hard for women to be able to vote and remember that my own grandmother wasn’t allowed to vote as a young woman. We are all part of the democracy in which we live…I taught my children that it’s their DUTY to vote in an election. In Australia, everyone is required to vote. We cannot have ‘our own perfect candidate’ who shows no compromise - that’s what some folk call a dictator.

I
Here in America it is the opinion of many citizens that it is their civil duty to vote even tho’ we are not required to do so. I believe if we were required by law, as you are in Australia ,the choice would be more balanced and true:shrug:
I understand that the requirement by law in Australia is because of your small population…little more than 20million??
Peace, Carlan

 

[Walcot]

I
Here in America it is the opinion of many citizens that it is their civil duty to vote even tho’ we are not required to do so. I believe if we were required by law, as you are in Australia ,the choice would be more balanced and true:shrug:
I understand that the requirement by law in Australia is because of your small population…little more than 20million??
Peace, Carlan

I’m from the UK! I think we should be all required to vote too - think how many people in the world don’t have that privilege!!

 

[Walcot]

As already pointed out by livingwordunity, it isn’t nearly as vague as you make it out to be. There are examples given.

First, you need to accurately represent the Catechism:
2525 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
Again, it isn’t nearly as vague as you make it out to be. The Catechism rejects the extremes, and I don’t see anyone on the right suggesting that we regulate the economy “solely by the law of the marketplace.” However, I do see suggestions on the left of “centralized planning,” especially with regard to “social justice and welfare”, namely in health care.

Who has suggested there is, or has been, such a candidate?

As long a well formed conscience uses proportionate reason. If one has difficulty discerning which is more important, protecting the lives of innocent human beings or providing “social justice and welfare”, I submit that there is failure somewhere either in conscience or in application of reason.

I’m certainly not accusing anyone of such. Nor am I seeing a lot of that here. However, I certainly do think poorly formed consciences is the biggest problem here. If people can’t tell the difference between intentional destruction of human life and unintended suffering, there is a real problem. And to explain it all away with a wave of the hand by attributing it to conscience is not an excuse, nor does it justify such a vote. These people may not be “unCatholic, unfaithful, or sinful”, but I think they certainly are gravely mistaken.

We are lucky and privileged to HAVE a vote…there are women and men in the world who would wonder why you would not use that privilege.

 

[lynnvinc]

I can’t tell you how I felt when I read this…Altho’ I no longer follow your faith, I joined this forum to try and learn what Catholicism is about - to ‘re-learn’ if you like, because I was brought up a Catholic (with a C of E mother).I am interested to understand how people think in religions.
I don’t recognise anything from my past here! I don’t recognise these hard uncompromising attitudes.
I recently spent 2 weeks with my old US/UK exchange student friend from our teenage years 40 years ago! We both farm, have families and have been teachers - we have always shared the same basic values but it’s interesting to see how we have gone opposite ways in politics and beliefs…it’s hard to describe - we are the greatest of friends still…we can discuss and listen which is great. Our societies are so different I sometimes wonder if, had we swopped places in our teens, would I have been like her and she me?
I don’t think so because I was questioning religious beliefs when I was a child, but it’s possible - with society/peer pressure.
My worst experience in US was hearing the lies and misinformation about global warming, my country’s health service and even evolution. My friend came out with all the old chestnuts…all answerable, but all still churned out by the Right propagandists as ‘absolute proofs’. What they all said about Obama filled me with compassion for the poor guy!!
Thank you for making me realise that not all American Catholics are as hard as they sometimes sound in this forum…perhaps some of these views are disproportionate?
The church of England has a saying…We believe in life before death.

Actually Catholics on the whole in American are better than non-Catholics – I just criticized them more because I love the Church.

I did a study recently and found that 31% of American Catholics are climate change skeptics, high, but much lower than the 38% on non-Catholics who are climate change skeptics. One of the factors I surmised is that Catholics in America are still impacted to some extent by a respect for science and a social justice orientation, which are not very strong among non-Catholics.

I was reared a Protestant, so I have a good sense of the non-conformist, rugged individualist ideal promoted here in America…which tends to make the self salient and others non-salient. Rights rights rights, with duties a dirty word, and in such an orientation “my rights” are the prominent sun, and “others’ rights” are the pale, often hidden moon. If we could rewrite the Bible it would be “The Ten Rights,” not “The Ten Commandments.”

All I can say is that CAF members on the whole are probably in the minority of Catholics, and do not reflect Catholicism in America very accurately. Many seem to have been more impacted by American culture, with other, non-CAF Catholics still somewhat impacted by Catholicism and the wisdom of the Holy Fathers and saints. My husband is a good Catholic, and would never get involved with CAF… But he’s from India, so he’s more into people and face-to-face relationships than computers.

 

[livingwordunity]

All I can say is that CAF members on the whole are probably in the minority of Catholics, and do not reflect Catholicism in America very accurately. Many seem to have been more impacted by American culture, with other, non-CAF Catholics still somewhat impacted by Catholicism and the wisdom of the Holy Fathers and saints. My husband is a good Catholic, and would never get involved with CAF

You sure are being judgmental. What exactly is your problem with CAF Catholics? Do you have any problem with anything that I have posted? I have a habit of not letting people get away with drive-by attacks on the teachings of the Church or gross misrepresentations thereof.

 

[lynnvinc]

You sure are being judgmental. What exactly is your problem with CAF Catholics? Do you have any problem with anything that I have posted? I have a habit of not letting people get away with drive-by attacks on the teachings of the Church or gross misrepresentations thereof.

Not sure what you have posted, but to give an example of what I mean, my experience here is that most CAF posters who express their views about climate change are denialists, expressing all sorts of cooked-up conspiracy theories, using “algore” as an ugly epithet, and some have been quite rude and crude with me as well, while only a tiny few here at CAF accept climate science. This goes against findings that the vast majority of Catholics in America (68%) accept that climate change is happening and is caused by humans (as opposed to only 62% if non-Catholics accepting it).

The denialism of climate change here at CAF goes against what JPII and BXVI have being saying for over 20 years, and goes against what amounts to a common appeal to morality that any religion would dictate. But I don’t see CAF denialism as a Catholic thing, so much as an American thing, with our refusal to accept responsibility for the harms we inflict, since our Enlightenment-based (anti-Catholic) ideology speaks only of rights, rights, rights, and not duties or responsiblities. In such a culture the rights of the weak and poor are overshadowed by the rights of the rich and strong, and our duties and responsibilities not to harm others (and even to help them) are pretty much non-salient. America follows a rights-based code of ethics (arising out of 18 c. Enlightenment, anti-Church philosophy), while the Church traditionally has followed more of a duty-based code of ethics (it’s the 10 Commandments, not the 10 Rights). Rights are included in such a code, but they are the other side of the duties coin (people have rights, because others have duties and vice versa) – they go together, because people are social beings who form and are enmeshed in society, and not just a bunch of rugged, autonomous individuals struggling to be free of and overthrow “new rules unleased by the administration,” as the OP puts it, or exempt from the laws of nature or from truth or Truth.

There could be a lot of good Catholics here at CAF who accept the science of climate change and are working in their daily lives to mitigate it, but do not like to engage with the denialists here. Maybe these meek people who shy away from militant denialists are in the majority. So I could be wrong.

 

[Walcot]

Not sure what you have posted, but to give an example of what I mean, my experience here is that most CAF posters who express their views about climate change are denialists, expressing all sorts of cooked-up conspiracy theories, using “algore” as an ugly epithet, and some have been quite rude and crude with me as well, while only a tiny few here at CAF accept climate science. This goes against findings that the vast majority of Catholics in America (68%) accept that climate change is happening and is caused by humans (as opposed to only 62% if non-Catholics accepting it).

The denialism of climate change here at CAF goes against what JPII and BXVI have being saying for over 20 years, and goes against what amounts to a common appeal to morality that any religion would dictate. But I don’t see CAF denialism as a Catholic thing, so much as an American thing, with our refusal to accept responsibility for the harms we inflict, since our Enlightenment-based (anti-Catholic) ideology speaks only of rights, rights, rights, and not duties or responsiblities. In such a culture the rights of the weak and poor are overshadowed by the rights of the rich and strong, and our duties and responsibilities not to harm others (and even to help them) are pretty much non-salient. America follows a rights-based code of ethics (arising out of 18 c. Enlightenment, anti-Church philosophy), while the Church traditionally has followed more of a duty-based code of ethics (it’s the 10 Commandments, not the 10 Rights). Rights are included in such a code, but they are the other side of the duties coin (people have rights, because others have duties and vice versa) – they go together, because people are social beings who form and are enmeshed in society, and not just a bunch of rugged, autonomous individuals struggling to be free of and overthrow “new rules unleased by the administration,” as the OP puts it, or exempt from the laws of nature or from truth or Truth.

There could be a lot of good Catholics here at CAF who accept the science of climate change and are working in their daily lives to mitigate it, but do not like to engage with the denialists here. Maybe these meek people who shy away from militant denialists are in the majority. So I could be wrong.

Sad to say, that makes sense from what I’ve read here…