Flying

[DL82]

The link between the carbon emissions from flying and the damage being done to the environment is very clear to most climate scientists today.

The number of Catholics who now fly on pilgrimages in huge. The whole point of a pilgrimage is that it’s supposed to be a challenge, and it’s supposed to remind us that life is a journey, and the journey itself is what matters. It’s not just a religious site-seeing tour. There are also those Catholics who drive for miles and miles to find a church they like, because they fell out with somebody in their local church or because it offers TLM or because the priest goes easy on them in confession, rather than sticking with their local parish church.

The number of Catholic bishops who preside over a diocese large enough to merit flying from place to place (especially in America) is quite large. Add in Eastern Catholic bishops, who may preside over a whole continent on behalf of their tiny scattered flock, and the problem is even clearer. Then there are local Synods, and regular trips to the Vatican.

Do we need to think again about how we ‘do’ Church, to become more localised, to realise that we can’t just summon a Bishop every time one of our kids turns 12 and needs confirming, that we may need to wait months or even years between seeing visiting religious figures? Do we need to place less emphasis on jubilee gatherings and pilgrimages and to be more aware of the holiness of local sites? That might be harder in America which lacks the rich Catholic history of Europe and the Holy Land, but if we remember the spiritual significance of desert places, this can be as rewarding as a trip to some old relics in a Cathedral somewhere.

Is there some role that communications technology can play in this? St Paul talks about being present in the spirit with churches while he is in prison - wouldn’t the possibility of instant web-links allow us to see those kind of distant spiritual presences for ourselves? Canonically, could a bishop or priest officiate over the sacraments over such a web link?

Is it not worth exploring how we could both be more global through communications and also more local by sticking with our parish churches and making more of an effort to get to know the people who live next door to us?

 

[chrysostom15]

I think that line of thinking becomes like the thinking of Judas when Mary was annointing the feet of Jesus with expensive perfume.

 

[DL82]

I think that line of thinking becomes like the thinking of Judas when Mary was annointing the feet of Jesus with expensive perfume.

Not at all. I’m not say don’t enjoy the beauty of holiness. I’m just talking about maybe some humility. Praying the Stations of the Cross gives the believer the same indulgences as does a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The only difference is that you don’t get the holiday in the sun when you pray the Stations.

Were our grandparents any less able to access the graces of the world-wide Church when they only ever saw the inside of their own local parish church or heard homilies from their parish priest?

 

[Dale_M]

Is it not worth exploring how we could both be more global through communications and also more local by sticking with our parish churches and making more of an effort to get to know the people who live next door to us?

I think both are admirable goals. But they do not require giving up flying for pilgrimages, which surely is a small percentage of air travel.

I expect communications technology to improve in quality and in quantity. But honestly, there is a big difference in the experience of seeing a place or person via camera as opposed to actually being present.

I agree with the desirability of choosing a church which is close to your home or workplace. Avoiding needless travel is a green choice - one we need to embrace as the economies of more and countries develop.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Before we ground the pilgrims, let’s ground the politicians who claim we are causing Global Warming.

 

[JimG]

The link between the carbon emissions from flying and the damage being done to the environment is very clear to most climate scientists today.

When you speak of carbon emissions, you mean carbon dioxide, a common gas which we produce every time we exhale. Take in oxygen, breathe out CO2. Plants do it, animals do it, humans do it. (Of course, plants also use CO2 + sunlight to produce oxygen, so we need to plant more trees.)

It’s hard for me to get excited about reducing CO2 emissions locally when I hear that China will be building one new coal fired power plant every week. That’s a lot of CO2 for domestic conservation to overcome.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There seems to be a singling out of Christians who go on religious pilgrimages.

Would anyone care to estimate the number of people who fly to Mecca on their annual Haj?

 

[Valke2]

The link between the carbon emissions from flying and the damage being done to the environment is very clear to most climate scientists today.

The number of Catholics who now fly on pilgrimages in huge. The whole point of a pilgrimage is that it’s supposed to be a challenge, and it’s supposed to remind us that life is a journey, and the journey itself is what matters. It’s not just a religious site-seeing tour. There are also those Catholics who drive for miles and miles to find a church they like, because they fell out with somebody in their local church or because it offers TLM or because the priest goes easy on them in confession, rather than sticking with their local parish church.

The number of Catholic bishops who preside over a diocese large enough to merit flying from place to place (especially in America) is quite large. Add in Eastern Catholic bishops, who may preside over a whole continent on behalf of their tiny scattered flock, and the problem is even clearer. Then there are local Synods, and regular trips to the Vatican.

Do we need to think again about how we ‘do’ Church, to become more localised, to realise that we can’t just summon a Bishop every time one of our kids turns 12 and needs confirming, that we may need to wait months or even years between seeing visiting religious figures? Do we need to place less emphasis on jubilee gatherings and pilgrimages and to be more aware of the holiness of local sites? That might be harder in America which lacks the rich Catholic history of Europe and the Holy Land, but if we remember the spiritual significance of desert places, this can be as rewarding as a trip to some old relics in a Cathedral somewhere.

Is there some role that communications technology can play in this? St Paul talks about being present in the spirit with churches while he is in prison - wouldn’t the possibility of instant web-links allow us to see those kind of distant spiritual presences for ourselves? Canonically, could a bishop or priest officiate over the sacraments over such a web link?

Is it not worth exploring how we could both be more global through communications and also more local by sticking with our parish churches and making more of an effort to get to know the people who live next door to us?

www.nativeenergy.org You can “erase” your carbon footprint and fly to your heart’s content. You raise an important point but I don’t think abandoning airtravel is the answer.

 

[Catholig]

The link between the carbon emissions from flying and the damage being done to the environment is very clear to most climate scientists today.

The number of Catholics who now fly on pilgrimages in huge. The whole point of a pilgrimage is that it’s supposed to be a challenge, and it’s supposed to remind us that life is a journey, and the journey itself is what matters. It’s not just a religious site-seeing tour. There are also those Catholics who drive for miles and miles to find a church they like, because they fell out with somebody in their local church or because it offers TLM or because the priest goes easy on them in confession, rather than sticking with their local parish church.

The number of Catholic bishops who preside over a diocese large enough to merit flying from place to place (especially in America) is quite large. Add in Eastern Catholic bishops, who may preside over a whole continent on behalf of their tiny scattered flock, and the problem is even clearer. Then there are local Synods, and regular trips to the Vatican.

Do we need to think again about how we ‘do’ Church, to become more localised, to realise that we can’t just summon a Bishop every time one of our kids turns 12 and needs confirming, that we may need to wait months or even years between seeing visiting religious figures? Do we need to place less emphasis on jubilee gatherings and pilgrimages and to be more aware of the holiness of local sites? That might be harder in America which lacks the rich Catholic history of Europe and the Holy Land, but if we remember the spiritual significance of desert places, this can be as rewarding as a trip to some old relics in a Cathedral somewhere.

Is there some role that communications technology can play in this? St Paul talks about being present in the spirit with churches while he is in prison - wouldn’t the possibility of instant web-links allow us to see those kind of distant spiritual presences for ourselves? Canonically, could a bishop or priest officiate over the sacraments over such a web link?

Is it not worth exploring how we could both be more global through communications and also more local by sticking with our parish churches and making more of an effort to get to know the people who live next door to us?

DL82,

I don’t think that the Catholic Church needs to be more localized, nor do I think that many here would agree. Yes you should be involved in your parish, but liturgically we should be as uniform as possible. Also I don’t think that global warming can be pinned on the pilgrimages, jubilee gatherings, and world youth days, because more people probably travel for business, or pleasure. Either way, I’m not really too bothered. I certainly think a trip to Jerusalem would be a good investment (spiritually of course )

As for the suggestion that we shouldn’t be confirmed by bishops - well I wasn’t, but maybe that is the reason why I feel that all 12 year olds should be.

Catholig

P.S. on C-Span I saw a commitee talking about global warming, and if we should try to prevent it or not. And if I remember correctly the guy said that we’d only slow it by five years. He also said that it would be our grand children who first see that the money invested (billions?) actually doing something. Last but not least he said that if we were to persue preventing global warming we’d only get 20 cents on the dollar, while we could use that same money elsewhere and get 40 cents on the dollar. So…

 

[Catholig]

www.nativeenergy.org You can “erase” your carbon footprint and fly to your heart’s content. You raise an important point but I don’t think abandoning airtravel is the answer.

Valke2,

I clicked on your url link and all I got was a page of links - adverts. Nothing about reducing my carbon footprint.

Catholig

 

[MrSmith732]

You’re serious? It’s actually a question worth asking of how much damage one might be doing to the environment by going on a pilgrimage?

I don’t understand. At all.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2,

I clicked on your url link and all I got was a page of links - adverts. Nothing about reducing my carbon footprint.

Catholig

oops. www.nativeenergy.com
Sorry.

 

[Al_Masetti]

What if the expression “carbon footprint” is just ANOTHER one of those “baloney buzzwords”?

Hmmmmm???

 

[puzzleannie]

obviously the answer is to adopt the Arnold Schwartzenagger solution–if you don’t own the plane, you are not responsible for emissions, so chill out.

I wish all the politicians promoting carbon offsets would tell me how to invest in the companies that are selling them, as they have, so I can get rich too off this scam.

so Catholics flying on pilgrimages are responsible for global warming, yet sex tourists flying to Asia to hook up with minors are not? and how did we get from emissions to age for confirmaton? and why hasn’t TLM been dragged into the discussion yet?

 

[Valke2]

What if the expression “carbon footprint” is just ANOTHER one of those “baloney buzzwords”?

Hmmmmm???

the theory is that one “purchases” an equal amount of clean energy that one uses. It helps put solar and wind energy onto the grid.

 

[Al_Masetti]

the theory is that one “purchases” an equal amount of clean energy that one uses. It helps put solar and wind energy onto the grid.

Oh, I understand the “theory”.

But the simple fact is that there is no such thing as “clean energy”.

Every energy project must be a “complete and usable facility”. Which means that the capital cost as well as the operating costs must be included. And … no fair overlooking some of the costs to make it so that certain energy “sources” get “help” gaining access “onto the grid”.



.:juggle:

 

[Valke2]

Oh, I understand the “theory”.

But the simple fact is that there is no such thing as “clean energy”.

Every energy project must be a “complete and usable facility”. Which means that the capital cost as well as the operating costs must be included. And … no fair overlooking some of the costs to make it so that certain energy “sources” get “help” gaining access “onto the grid”.



.:juggle:

Including all that, solar and wind energy is still celan energy. Costing more doesn’t change that.

 

[Brendan]

Including all that, solar and wind energy is still celan energy. Costing more doesn’t change that.

No, any type of energy production produces a by product\pollutant. It’s a function of thermodynamics.

Changing energy production just changes the pollutant.

For example, at the turn of the century, cars were hailed as pollutant free, and they were, as the common pollutant then was horse manure.

Dried manure dust was everywhere in the cities prior to the advent of the auto, and it was a very real health hazard.

Any energy source can only be called ‘clean’ relative to a particular pollutant, not overall.

Any more so that the car is more pollutant free than the horse.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Including all that, solar and wind energy is still celan energy. Costing more doesn’t change that.

It may be celan energy, but it ain’t clean energy.

 

[Valke2]

No, any type of energy production produces a by product\pollutant. It’s a function of thermodynamics.

Changing energy production just changes the pollutant.

For example, at the turn of the century, cars were hailed as pollutant free, and they were, as the common pollutant then was horse manure.

Dried manure dust was everywhere in the cities prior to the advent of the auto, and it was a very real health hazard.

Any energy source can only be called ‘clean’ relative to a particular pollutant, not overall.
So that we don’t have to argue senselessly over terms, I’ll define mine. Clean energy means wind, solar and biomass.
Any more so that the car is more pollutant free than the horse.

ok. so changing energy sources would result in a pollutant that would not contribute to global warming, if that makes you feel better.