Environmental message, From and On the Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter sarah_j
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MODERATOR NOTICE

Keep all posts charitable
Do not make disparaging remarks towards those working at the Vatican
You may express that you do not like something if you do it charitably and refrain from using terms like ‘sacrilege’ which is a very serious accusation made upon a cleric and hardly a judgement we here would be in a position to make towards anyone.
 
As_for_my_House said:
Is the Pope just trying to find a common ground to reach the secular world?
Is this his way of attracting their attention? I hope so.
Click to expand...
I think the chances of such things attracting non-believers to the faith approach absolute zero. However, I do think it leads those same non-believers to conclude: “we’re all on the same page, glad all that nasty business of same sex marriage etc. is behind us and now we can go pet a killer whale together.”
 
sarah_j said:
nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/an-environmental-message-from-and-on-the-vatican

http://i2.nyt.com/images/2015/12/05/world/05Blog-vatican3/05Blog-vatican3-master495.jpg
Click to expand...
Gorgeous pic. I love Epcot. The Living Seas was always a favorite.

Wait, what?
JRRTFAN said:
I think the chances of such things attracting non-believers to the faith approach absolute zero. However, I do think it leads those same non-believers to conclude: “we’re all on the same page, glad all that nasty business of same sex marriage etc. is behind us and now we can go pet a killer whale together.”
Click to expand...
It will NEVER win souls from non-believers.

If you cannot attract them to the Eucharist, the summit of our faith, they aren’t going to stick around for the guitar, donuts and frescoes. You can’t out-Protestant the Protestants. They’ve been doing it longer, and do it much more effectively.
 
Mark121359 said:
Someone here on CAF recently posted on another thread that he believes that AGW is the famous “Great Deception” predicted that would deceive even the elect…and I have to admit, I’m beginning to wonder!

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
Me as well, my suspicions are growing, and I’m disturbed to say that because I never thought I would give it any credence. I’ve never had a strong opinion on climate change, but this display strikes me as bizarre. Something just seems off.

To be fair, there have been a lot of great deceptions, and I can think of bigger ones.

From a strictly artistic point of view, this display seems like poor taste to me.

Is this for real?

Edit: I’m involved about this because I have family who may or may not believe the Church is in cahoots with the great deception pre-Rapture. I don’t know the subtleties of their opinions. I do know they believe in the rapture and that they don’t believe in global warming.
 
Ditto to your post.

I’m not buying all this AGW stuff. Even if those in the highest positions in the Church do.
Mark121359 said:
Someone here on CAF recently posted on another thread that he believes that AGW is the famous “Great Deception” predicted that would deceive even the elect…and I have to admit, I’m beginning to wonder!

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
 
I don’t know what to say. What a blessing to all.
This was the Feast of the Immaculate Conception!
This was St. Peter’s Basilica!

I can’t wait for Christmas. Maybe a giant consecrated host for the backdrop on the next light show.
 
David Warren has a commentary article here.

“Sponsorship and support came from various environmentalist organizations, also active in the cause of “population control.” So far as I follow, the Catholic Church supplied only the endorsement – the pulpit for their preaching – while Our Lady stood neglected, aside.”
 
sarah_j said:
A number of years ago, I visited the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John
the Divine in Manhattan and was shocked and puzzled to see that inside
the church were displayed a giant crystal formation, a statue of a howling wolf,
and other statues which seemed pagan.

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever expect to see the Basilica of St. Peter
used as a movie screen to project photos of lions, monkeys, elephants, etc.

No doubt Greenpeace and Peta are thrilled, but as a Catholic I find it
so disrespectful to use St. Peter’s in this way. Maybe I’m one of those
fundamentalist Catholics.

You can see a slideshow of last night’s Vatican light show by clicking on
the picture of the leopard in this link. There are 35 photos.

nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/St-Peters-Basilica-Vatican-Animal-Light-Show-360993021.html
Click to expand...
These are all God’s creatures, which He pronounced as “good.” You can throw in cockroaches, mosquitoes, and spiders, as well 🙂

It’s only humans who are prone to sin and can go to Hell :eek:

At any rate is it truly great that we humans have a savior in Jesus Christ, who can help us avoid Hell…
 
Path_Finder said:
It is interesting that someone from Ignatius press got into the fray discussing this environmental issue: lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-bishop-popes-view-on-global-warming-is-as-authoritative-as-the-cond
Click to expand...
Well that’s interesting. I can understand how Bishop Sorondo may feel frustration though with so many Catholics dismissing Laudato si as an opinion piece. It seems that it was a right wing journalist who seized up the engines of the talks though, getting testy and dramatic.
These points were contradicted in the presentation by Acton Institute founder and President Father Robert Sirico who said it is “important to underscore the distinction between the theological dimension of Laudato si’ and its empirical, scientific, and economic claims.” He explained, “The Church does not claim to speak with the same authority on matters of economics and science… as it does when pronouncing on matters of faith and morals.”
Click to expand...
Quoting the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine to support his point, Fr. Sirico said: “Christ did not bequeath to the Church a mission in the political, economic or social order; the purpose he assigned to her was a religious one. . . . This means that the Church does not intervene in technical questions with her social doctrine, nor does she propose or establish systems or models of social organization. This is not part of the mission entrusted to her by Christ” (CCSD 68).
Click to expand...
We do however believe the Churchs teaching regarding communism for instance, holds great magisterial authority and that seems to me to be on a similar plain as far as morality. Perhaps the ethics of capilalism need to be re=examined and the current system be broken away from as innately toxic to the environment or something like that?
 
Path_Finder said:
It is interesting that someone from Ignatius press got into the fray discussing this environmental issue: lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-bishop-popes-view-on-global-warming-is-as-authoritative-as-the-cond
Click to expand...
I think the issue is this and it goes back way before Catholicism was established: “Thou shalt not kill.” And this is not only in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, but in a lot of other traditions as well. It’s pretty basic.

That said, it’s pretty vague or abstract, as well.

Now I’ve never had an abortion, so I have to look at other ways in which I might be killing or contributing to the death of others.

For one, environmental harms come to mind. Yes, I’m guilty of contributing to these. So that is one area in my life I’ve been focusing on – trying to reduce my contributions to the harm and death of other people and to other’s of God’s creation thru my contribution to environmental harms.

A simple person doesn’t have to delve into whether the issue is magisterial teaching or not. It is written on my heart: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Another one: “Thou shalt not lie, esp lying that contributes to killing.” So, methinks those who are climate change denialists are guilty of 2 sins (or flaws), not just the one I am guilty of.

Okay, so people are unsure about anthropogenic climate change (even tho scientists and the Pope are quite sure about it). So then the principle of PRUDENCE kicks in. When in doubt, don’t do things that other people are saying are killing and harming people, even if you are quite unsure about it.

There are just no more excuses left for not turning off lights not in use and the myriad of other things we absolutely must do to reduce out GHGs and other pollutants that harm and kill people.
 
Path_Finder said:
It is interesting that someone from Ignatius press got into the fray discussing this environmental issue: lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-bishop-popes-view-on-global-warming-is-as-authoritative-as-the-cond
Click to expand...
Another interesting factoid is that the Acton Institute & Fr. Sirico are funded by Exxon and Koch. See greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/koch/ and greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Koch-Ind-Still-Fueling-Climate-Denial.pdf?a1481f

Not to mention that it is wrong (a lie) to say Laudato Si provides doubt about anthropogenic climate change:

RE #188 of Laudato Si (which is used ad nauseam by denialists) – “There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions”…

This comes well after a very thorough discussion of climate science and calls to mitigate climate change, and is only a couple of paragraphs below discussion of the 1992 Rio Declaration and its precautionary principle in #186: “‘where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing cost-effective measures’ which prevent environmental degradation.”

In this context “lack of broad consensus” in #188 seems to be referring to other environmental problems or cutting edge aspects of climate science, not the basics of it, and should most certainly NOT be used as an excuse for failing to turn off lights not in use and the myriad of other things we need to do that not only reduce our GHG contributions, but also reduce other pollution and harms, and for the most part save us $$.
 
Quite a while ago, I heard from a elementary school teacher that the kindergarten’s home work has a question like this: On one side of the paper, there is a picture of many people and little food. The question is, “There are too many people and too little food, what should we do?” When you flip the paper the answer is on the back: “Solution: Let old people die.” That is the common core homework for the kindergarten. I have never linked this with the climate change until lately.

The climate change issue seems become more and more important. The abuse of the earth by human beings caused the global warming. The direct way to deal with any problem is from its root. In this case, it is the human beings.

In order to reduce the source of the abuse, it is necessary to have less people. Therefore contraception, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide would all help. Oh, and don’t forget the gay “marriage”. They won’t create the problem of more population!! All these are ways of population control to reduce the problem of climate change. And it is important to educate human beings from kindergarten - that is where common core comes in.

Global warming, climate change, common core, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, gay, and lesbian, they are all interrelated. They can all serve one purpose. That is the UN agenda.

Maybe you have figured all these out already. But for me,this is a light bulb moment. I believe the Holy Spirit just inspired me.
 
PTL said:
Quite a while ago, I heard from a elementary school teacher that the kindergarten’s home work has a question like this: On one side of the paper, there is a picture of many people and little food. The question is, “There are too many people and too little food, what should we do?” When you flip the paper the answer is on the back: “Solution: Let old people die.” That is the common core homework for the kindergarten. I have never linked this with the climate change until lately.

The climate change issue seems become more and more important. The abuse of the earth by human beings caused the global warming. The direct way to deal with any problem is from its root. In this case, it is the human beings.

In order to reduce the source of the abuse, it is necessary to have less people. Therefore contraception, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide would all help. Oh, and don’t forget the gay “marriage”. They won’t create the problem of more population!! All these are ways of population control to reduce the problem of climate change. And it is important to educate human beings from kindergarten - that is where common core comes in.

Global warming, climate change, common core, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, gay, and lesbian, they are all interrelated. They can all serve one purpose. That is the UN agenda.

Maybe you have figured all these out already. But for me,this is a light bulb moment. I believe the Holy Spirit just inspired me.
Click to expand...
OR…

We might consider turning off lights not in use and the myriad of other (mostly mundane and somewhat boring) things we can do (as our popes & environmentalists have been suggesting for over 25 years) before going to the extreme of killing people.

But I guess denialists just find it easier and much more fun to kill, kill, kill…

But then, oh no, think of all that methane from rotting bodies. That would really put the climate in a tailspin of runaway warming. :eek:
 
Justin_Swanton said:
As a merely personal reflection, with no intention of trying to convince anybody of anything, I don’t give a toss for environmental issues. Nature is not an immaculate being sullied by the dirty prints of human hands. It is something that was designed from the start to mirror humankind’s fallen nature: possessing beautiful and majestic aspects that give a hint of the nature of the God who created it, but also shot through and through with a brutality and misery that reflects the dark side of Original sin - species preying on other species, living off them as parasites, or even eating their own kind (cannibalism having been recorded in every known species that is not strictly vegetarian).

There never was a golden age when humankind lived in harmony with nature a la Dances with Wolves. Even before we discovered industrial technology we were our own worst enemy besides living uncertain lives in a natural world that could kill us at any moment with disease or a succession of droughts.

Existence on this earth is one problem after another and the solutions to one set of problems usually create a new set all of their own. We aren’t meant to build a kind of pseudo-paradise; we’re meant to improvise and bump along as well as we can whilst working out our salvation, getting ourselves ready for the world that ***really ***matters.

Making the environment a prime issue speaks volumes about the worldview behind it. And it’s futile anyway. Nobody is prepared to abandon the fundamental conveniences of a lifestyle in which he was raised. Who wants to give up the logistical transportation system (necessarily based on petrol and diesel driven trucks since electric motors aren’t nearly powerful enough - cheerio supermarkets). Who want to radically reduce the variety of foods he eats and substantially reduce the amount? Who wants to give up long-distance travel? Hot water? (geysers consume huge percentage of a household’s electricity bill) Computers? (also a big consumer of electricity - bearing in mind that electricity can’t all be generated by HEP dams, windmills and nuclear reactors).

It’s a non-starter. We’re going to bump along with fossil fuels until they run out, then we’re going to wonder what on earth to do next. We’ll probably figure out something, but it will be under dire necessity, not because we suddenly felt noble about the environment.
Click to expand...
Well said.

When we practice the virtues, such as temperance, greed is mitigated. Human greed is known to damage the environment.

Without addressing the problem of greed, protection of the environment is a lost cause. Ironic, since the people who go on and on about protecting the environment, Al Gore comes to mind, flit about in private jets but somehow find a way to blame the poor peasant in some third world country by saying these poor peasants have the gall to have children in the first place. If that isn’t hypocracy, I don’t know what is.
 
lynnvinc said:
OR…

We might consider turning off lights not in use and the myriad of other (mostly mundane and somewhat boring) things we can do (as our popes & environmentalists have been suggesting for over 25 years) before going to the extreme of killing people.

But I guess denialists just find it easier and much more fun to kill, kill, kill…

But then, oh no, think of all that methane from rotting bodies. That would really put the climate in a tailspin of runaway warming. :eek:
Click to expand...
I have a different experience. I was very interested in ecology and frankly still am. I had the good fortune to have been born and to have spent my childhood near primeval rain forests in Asia. I am talking old growth rain forests with a lot of majestic trees. I was into botany and I found the variety of trees growing there to be fascinating. Anyway, a lot of Western environmentalists also go there to mostly study the forest. Most of them were okay but occasionally you get someone who has the mindset that it was us natives who were the cause of the forest problems and it would be better if we were all wiped out, because we “breed like rats”. I remember some even saying it to my face.

I now live in the US and I find this view quite commonplace among the environmentalists I have come met.
 
Sarcelle said:
I have a different experience. I was very interested in ecology and frankly still am. I had the good fortune to have been born and to have spent my childhood near primeval rain forests in Asia. I am talking old growth rain forests with a lot of majestic trees. I was into botany and I found the variety of trees growing there to be fascinating. Anyway, a lot of Western environmentalists also go there to mostly study the forest. Most of them were okay but occasionally you get someone who has the mindset that it was us natives who were the cause of the forest problems and it would be better if we were all wiped out, because we “breed like rats”. I remember some even saying it to my face.

I now live in the US and I find this view quite commonplace among the environmentalists I have come met.
Click to expand...
I hear you. I’ve also been frustrated with those supposed environmentalists who refuse to reduce their own GHG & other contributions to env problems, but stand around saying people in developing nations should have less children.

I think you would find Laudato Si a very refreshing difference from those types of misguided messages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top