English Catholics urged to divulge ‘eco-sins’ during Confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, I can’t wait for the flood of “is it a sin to ‘x’” threads when these so called “eco-sins” becomes a real thing.
“Is it a sin to drive a Hummer?”
“Is it a sin to have more than 4 kids?”
“I just threw a cigarette butt on the ground while I was driving, am I going to hell?”
“I ran over a squirrel, do i need to confess this?”
“I just bought a Chevy Bolt, do I get an indulgence?”
 
Last edited:
Climate is global, weather is local. The area of one part of the planet is not as interesting to me.
And that’s the problem, we don’t have a temperature record back to 1800’s for the vast majority of the planet, so it’s made up.
 
We are commanded to be good stewards of the earth. Of course when we commit those sins we need to confess!
 
The NAS confirmed AGW more than a decade ago. Deniers funded BEST to come up with an independent study of the matter and confirmed the same.
 
Sometimes I use plastic straws to sip soft drinks. More matter for confession. I hope the confessions do not get too lengthy.
 
How about acts of deliberate destruction of the environment?
I don’t think anyone sane would deliberately destroy the environment. And someone who has lost it and does it has no discernment, right?
Negligence is the main cause, even in the case of big industry, and mercantilism - such as wanting to create another type of environment more suitable for one’s business and that also includes negligence and indifference. I don’t think the farmers who burn forests to make a lane for cattle actually think that the environment is destroyed. I think they just go about considering no harm has been done, cattle is nature too and so are lanes. 😑
I don’t think ecological interest is anti-Christian as long as it’s not mixed with other pantheist religions and as long as it’s for the sake of people too not just the planet. There was this Swedish professor who said cannibalism is preferred because it’s ecological - this is clearly anti-Christian.
Or if the homily is about recycling …. this would be too much too. Ecology is alright if it’s kept as an activity Christians have in the world not as part of our religion.
 
Two things.

First, climate change is real. Geologists (not leftist ones) have climate records that go back hundreds of thousands of years. The climate is definitely warming up past normal variation, and that is highly likely to be very bad for the entire planet. Also, humans are the definitely the cause of this change, because the other major climate changes in the past were all caused by an abnormal/outside factor (a massive, multi-thousand-year volcanic eruption or a meteor hitting Earth). So we should be more careful.

Second, while practicing some environmental awareness is likely a good thing, I do not think it qualifies as sinful. It is negligence or thoughtlessness, at most. Additionally, I do believe that it should be taken too far or it will cross into idolatry (earth worship). Be careful there, too.

Thirdly, while recycling and such is good for the environment, the best thing is to just use less stuff. Don’t eat out all the time, get local food products, be thrifty with what you do buy. Basically, just be conscientious about what you are getting. We don’t need a lot of what we buy, so buy less. This can also tie into rejecting materialism.

Finally, I swear by the Bible that I am not a liar or even particularly leftist. In fact, I take most of my political cues from the Catechism, with a tendency towards the conservative side.
 
Hooray for Church for encouraging people to recognize wasteful behaviors and reckless treatment of our planet as sins
 
I don’t want to speak for the OP, but I think the juxtaposition of the two stories illustrates how many of our bishops have completely squandered what moral authority they might have had. Many have also barely called anything a “sin” in decades or encouraged the confession of any other specific sins.

Then all of a sudden they decide to preach on repentance from a trendy and novel-sounding sin. I think they’re just going to get an eye-roll from the few people who actually still go to confession.

(note, I agree that sin can be committed against God and neighbor when it comes to deliberately destroying resources intended by God for the sustenance of all).
 
Last edited:
This is a way of feeding the faithful sins toward Mother Earth.
With the right packaging, maybe we won’t see it as the worship of an idol.
Offending Pachamama? Is that what’s really going on? May the Church anchor itself to the Eucharist and our Blessed Mother.
 
To paraphrase the gospel (Mark 2:27), God made the earth for man, not man for the earth.

Is not someone more important to God than something? Did not God’s creation yield fossil fuels for man’s use? A more likely “eco-evil” would result from the pain and suffering caused by willful men who would restrict others from the use of God’s gifts.

The evidence that the ongoing use of these gifts may someday be harmful to future generations must be as certain as the evidence that not using them immediately causes pain and suffering to the existing generation. Not even close.
 
First, climate change is real.
The problem @GraceJ is that saying it more will not convince those who do not believe there is a danger. Too many people have an a large investment in their lifestyle or politics to even consider the possibility of a problem. Selfishness is a blind we all wear at times. So, even if most of the evidence is in favor of global warming, even the possibility of environmental catastrophe will be ignored.

In the U.S., acting with such blindness individual is criminal. If I shoot a gun up in the air in a city, even though the odds are no one will be hurt, it is still considered reckless conduct. Driving intoxicated is illegal, not because the driver will harm someone, but simply because of the risk of him harming someone. Yet somehow, the risk of mass death through environmental disaster is not seen as something that should even be considered, not if it is going to stop 'Muricans from their cheap petrol, SUV’s, and throw-away lifestyle.

Take this thread. Pope Francis, following his predecessor Pope Benedict, and others, has tried to teach us of our responsibility to our common home, and that it is a moral issue. Yet when a bishop tries to pass this on to his people, what was the response? “What about child sexual abuse.” That is a problem of deliberate indifference, an unwillingness to be taught by our Mother Church.

As John wrote, “Let those who have ears to hear listen to what the Spirit says to the Church.”
 
Last edited:
CCC:

Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
 
MMGW is junk science - even worse, it is pseudo-science
If anthropogenic global warming is “junk science” or “pseudoscience”, why is it backed by 100 percent of scientists publishing in the field?
They illustrate the tragicomedic state of Catholicism in the UK at present.
Totally agree about the cardinal’s handling of the sexual abuse crisis. But I think anything that focuses people’s minds on the environment can only be a good thing.
Sometimes I use plastic straws to sip soft drinks. More matter for confession. I hope the confessions do not get too lengthy.
I get the impression you find this amusing? Perhaps this will change your mind:

 
Oh dear that made me teary. This week there was yet another beached whale story, this time in Scotland, where the animal had a 100kg ‘litter ball’ inside its stomach.

 
If the whale had washed up with a bundle of kelp and rocks in its stomach, wouldn’t that be just as sad, and just as much a misadventure?

I agree that it is sad that Chinese container vessels are notorious polluters of the ocean; but it seems likely that the whale enjoyed the taste of trash more than krill. Whales usually sieve out debris that is not food, so one assumes he ate it on purpose. It illustrates the folly of gluttony, and warns humans to watch what they eat.

As for global warming, we could only wish for another beautiful, productive time like the Roman Warming Period or the Medieval Warming Period. You English could have vineyards and orange orchards in Kent again.

But no, we live under a sunspot-free sun, and are more likely to freeze in a minor cooling period.

And yes, the abuse of children is a more important sin against the earth, and our human ecology, than a bit of litter or even a lot. If you don’t protect kids, who are members of your own species, how can you be trusted to protect a forest? Who is going to do the protecting if the kids aren’t in any state to do it?
 
Last edited:
Some wild animals, including most whales, are smart enough not to eat trash or debris that will hurt them.

If a wild animal is not smart enough to survive, it won’t. That is nature, in our fallen world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top