How should a Catholic view USCCB's statement on US withdrawal from Paris agreement

[JamesCaruso]

I am confused as to how a Catholic must view the USCCB’s statement on the US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement. The Bishops said they were deeply troubled. Since this agreement is about the theory of man made global climate change (MMGCC), am I to conclude that the Church accepts the theory as scientifically proven? I have always thought this to be an ongoing debate, even if the numbers who ascribe to MMGCC are greater than those who oppose it. The Bishops quote scripture almost as if it were a fore drawn conclusion that the US was wrong to withdraw from the agreement. The Bishops appeared untroubled by the President’s allegation that the agreement was grossly unfair to the US. As a practicing Catholic, am I wrong to oppose the Bishops’ and Pope Francis’s opinion on the Paris agreement? It seems like the basis of the entire agreement is in theoretical science, not proven science, and so the Church leaders are taking sides in an as yet unresolved dispute. Can I oppose the Bishops’ and the Pope’s opinion on the Paris agreement without sin? Am I opposing the Church when I want to see a public debate on MMGCC because I believe it is still undecided science?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Link to article on statement by the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace:

cnstopstories.com/2017/06/01/trumps-decision-to-abandon-paris-climate-pact-called-deeply-troubling/

 

[Crusaderbear]

Trump didn’t say America wouldn’t work to mitigate CC, he only said we wouldn’t be paying for the rest of yhe world’s supposed efforts…let’s see how this goes.

 

[Black_Knight]

I have no problem with it. The fact is that weather patterns are changing and it matters little whether it is all because of man and his pollution, (which is very possible) or naturally occurring, or a combination of both.

It is happening and it is indeed a factor in global policies. I disagree with this administration’s actions on this matter and many other environmental issues because it seems to me that their idea of greatness means allowing corporations to do as they please and we have seen in Russia, China, India, and many other countries where that leads. This is not the path to greatness…

 

[MaryT777]

Trump didn’t say America wouldn’t work to mitigate CC, he only said we wouldn’t be paying for the rest of yhe world’s supposed efforts…let’s see how this goes.

 

[Ender]

Since this agreement is about the theory of man made global climate change (MMGCC), am I to conclude that the Church accepts the theory as scientifically proven?

This is a question of science, not faith. There is no Catholic position on the theory of MMGCC.

The Bishops quote scripture almost as if it were a fore drawn conclusion that the US was wrong to withdraw from the agreement.

The bishops have confused ends with means. We are surely required to be good stewards of the Earth, that said, however, the best way to do that is up to us to determine. There are no scripture passages that suggest how we should proceed on the matter.

As a practicing Catholic, am I wrong to oppose the Bishops’ and Pope Francis’s opinion on the Paris agreement?

No.

It seems like the basis of the entire agreement is in theoretical science, not proven science, and so the Church leaders are taking sides in an as yet unresolved dispute.

Yes. Regrettably this is true.

Can I oppose the Bishops’ and the Pope’s opinion on the Paris agreement without sin?

Absolutely.

Am I opposing the Church when I want to see a public debate on MMGCC because I believe it is still undecided science?

To disagree with the personal opinions of some of the clergy is not at all the same as opposing the church. The church, unlike her ministers, has no position.

Ender

 

[ShrodingersCat]

The church has no official stance on scientific matters.

However, the church DOES tend to accept that the experts in science are scientists and not politicians. The church believes that we are stewards of the Earth and pollution is wrong. The church does not condone extreme capitalism. The bishops know that Donald Trump’s support base consists of climate change skeptics and the Trump himself appears to be one, which is a position at odds with scientific consensus and with Trump’s insistence that his reasons were purely economical.

If Trump was an environmentalist and he pulled out, I doubt the bishops would have said anything, because Trump’s intentions in that regard would probably be good.

Regardless, you are free to personally disagree with the bishops and pope Francis, though I don’t think it is particularly wise to do so.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I am confused as to how a Catholic must view the USCCB’s statement on the US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement. The Bishops said they were deeply troubled. Since this agreement is about the theory of man made global climate change (MMGCC), am I to conclude that the Church accepts the theory as scientifically proven? I have always thought this to be an ongoing debate, even if the numbers who ascribe to MMGCC are greater than those who oppose it. …It seems like the basis of the entire agreement is in theoretical science, not proven science,

This is getting to be tiresome, whether it’s evolution or climate change. “It’s just a theory…” “There is no proof…” “scientifically proven…” “…theoretical science vs. proven science…”

Really? This shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to what science is and how it works. There is no “debate.” Look at the credentials of those who deny the theory—look closely. They may be PhDs, but not in the areas that have anything to do with climate change. I may be an expert on Renaissance art, but that doesn’t make me an expert on nuclear physics.

Read “Merchants of Doubt.” It’s not necessary to prove a theory wrong. Just make uninformed people question the theory. This is a tactic that has been used in all sorts of “debates.” Whether it’s fracking, tobacco, or climate change. And of course who funds the ads and articles that make you question science? Why our good friends at the Petroleum Institute. Isn’t that a coincidence? And even oil companies are seeing the light. So you know things are bad.

If you’re a TV producer, and you are preparing a segment on some subject–climate change, taxes, crime, whatever, you don’t want a program that seems one-sided, even if every expert in the subject agrees. Boring! You need to stir the pot. So you hunt around for some crackpot that thinks the opposite and put him on the air. Now you have two points of view getting equal time–and viewers foolishly give them equal weight because that’s what they see. It’s an illusion produced by the media’s attempt to be “fair.” There are still people who believe the world is flat. That doesn’t make them experts.

See this article by David Suzuki (if you’re Canadian, you know who he is).

davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

The Bishops quote scripture almost as if it were a fore drawn conclusion that the US was wrong to withdraw from the agreement.

Your conclusion is correct. The US was wrong to withdraw, for a host of reasons on many levels. Even if you deny the scientific basis of climate change, look at the political fallout. What happens to trust in the US? Poof. Gone. For what?

And religiously, we have a duty to be good stewards of the world.

If you think every other country in the world is wrong, and the US is somehow right, then I think you qualify for some sort of prize. Syria didn’t sign because it’s in chaos and has a few other things on its mind. Nicaragua didn’t sign because it didn’t think the agreement went far enough–not because it didn’t agree with the content.

Whether it’s health care, climate change, or some other subject where the US policy opposes every other country in the world, isn’t it conceivable that everyone else is right and the US is wrong? Do you really think the US is somehow smarter than everyone else?

The Bishops appeared untroubled by the President’s allegation that the agreement was grossly unfair to the US.

So…tell us all, exactly how is this agreement “grossly unfair” to the US?

Two more things: First, Trump repeated this point in his speech: “It’s only 0.2% so what difference does it make?” Let’s say you have a balance scale. One one side you have 10 tons. On the other side you have 10 tons. You add a feather to one side. The scale shifts and one side rises and the other falls–it’s just a feather, but it disturbs the balance.

Second, read some articles and books on historical climate change. Forget computer modelling and all that stuff. At this point we know what the climate was in different parts of the world over hundreds of thousands of years with pretty good accuracy. There are all sorts of methods to measure temperature and rainfall–read about it. One thing should jump out and smack you between the eyes: major changes in climate can happen within a 10-year period. We’re not necessarily facing gradual change over centuries. We could be facing catastrophic changes in the next decade. Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know. Let’s place a bet: save a few billion dollars vs. the extinction of human life. Gee…what to do…

 

[Ender]

If Trump was an environmentalist and he pulled out, I doubt the bishops would have said anything, because Trump’s intentions in that regard would probably be good.

And there you have it: despite there being a very clear teaching on not judging what one cannot know, and of the requirement of charity - doctrines both of which are violated by this explanation - this is how the bishops’ position is understood. Even more depressing is the thought that there may be a degree of accuracy in this perception.

Regardless, you are free to personally disagree with the bishops and pope Francis, though I don’t think it is particularly wise to do so.

If it was reasonable to disagree with the mainstream view of global warming before, it is no less wise to do so now. The opinions of certain bishops on the matter carries no scientific weight at all.*Great as our filial duty of reverence is towards whatever [the pope] may say, great as our duty of obedience must be to the guidance of the Chief Shepherd, we do not hold that every word of his is infallible, or that he must always be right. Much less do we dream of teaching that he is infallible, or in any degree superior to other men, when he speaks on matters that are scientific… *(Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val, 1902)
Ender

 

[josh987654321]

I am confused as to how a Catholic must view the
USCCB’s statement on the US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement. The Bishops said they were deeply troubled.

Personally I will not give it much attention. I’ll read what they say when I have time and take it under advisement.

Since this agreement is about the theory of man made global climate change (MMGCC), am I to conclude that the Church accepts the theory as scientifically proven?

No, it’s not a Dogma of the faith and personally I think the Churches involvement here is bordering on another Galileo affair.

I have always thought this to be an ongoing debate,

It is.

As a practicing Catholic, am I wrong to oppose the Bishops’ and Pope Francis’s opinion on the Paris agreement?

No you are not and I join you, you raise some very good points.

It seems like the basis of the entire agreement is in theoretical science, not proven science, and so the Church leaders are taking sides in an as yet unresolved dispute.

Exactly, sounds like another Galileo Affair.

Can I oppose the Bishops’ and the Pope’s opinion on the Paris agreement without sin?

Yes, and I do.

Am I opposing the Church when I want to see a public debate on MMGCC because I believe it is still undecided science?

No your not.

Thank you for posting JameCaruso and God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

It’s very upsetting that on one hand, (Laudato si’) it looks like our Holy Father is advocating something that is not Dogma of the faith and based on science such as Climate Change and on the other hand (Amoris laetitia) looks like he’s undermining something that is Dogma of the faith and based on scripture, such as the indissolubility of marriage.

So I think we need to pray for Our Holy Father Pope Francis, Bishops, Priests and Laity. Some tough times, stay strong.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[exnihilo]

I’ll tell you how I view it. I completely ignore it and wonder what makes the Bishops spend their political capital on matters so far from their competency. Taking care of the environment is good and the Bishops should encourage this. But as an individual or collective why do they offer opinions about incredibly complex specifics that involve selective data, and economic and climate models whose predictive power is probably less accurate than astrology.

It bothers me because always having and sharing an opinion about every little thing is the core of the Facebook and Twitter age. I certainly don’t think that is an advancement. When people are always sharing an opinion about every little thing after a while you tend to tune them out. Then when they have an opinion about something important or within their competency you are less likely to pay much attention.

However, the church DOES tend to accept that the experts in science are scientists and not politicians.

But does the Church accept that scientists are not political? That would be a huge misjudgement.

 

[commenter]

I’ll tell you how I view it. I completely ignore it and wonder what makes the Bishops spend their political capital on matters so far from their competency. Taking care of the environment is good and the Bishops should encourage this. But as an individual or collective why do they offer opinions about incredibly complex specifics that involve selective data, and economic and climate models whose predictive power is probably less accurate than astrology.

It bothers me because always having and sharing an opinion about every little thing is the core of the Facebook and Twitter age. I certainly don’t think that is an advancement. When people are always sharing an opinion about every little thing after a while you tend to tune them out. Then when they have an opinion about something important or within their competency you are less likely to pay much attention.

The problem in the media age is that, regardless of intent, every issue gets implied equal importance. Trump’s position of abortion is 1000 times as important as his position on climate change. But when the USCCB feels the need to take a stand on every issue that gets emphasized by the media, that difference in importance is lost to the average listener.

The Church is at its best when is emphasizes whatever truths are currently ignored or forgotten by the society as a whole. The Church is at its worst when it feels the need to say “Me too” for every issue that is already emphasized by the media.

 

[grannymh]

I am confused as to how a Catholic must view the USCCB’s statement on the US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement. The Bishops said they were deeply troubled. Since this agreement is about the theory of man made global climate change (MMGCC), am I to conclude that the Church accepts the theory as scientifically proven? I have always thought this to be an ongoing debate, even if the numbers who ascribe to MMGCC are greater than those who oppose it. The Bishops quote scripture almost as if it were a fore drawn conclusion that the US was wrong to withdraw from the agreement. The Bishops appeared untroubled by the President’s allegation that the agreement was grossly unfair to the US. As a practicing Catholic, am I wrong to oppose the Bishops’ and Pope Francis’s opinion on the Paris agreement? It seems like the basis of the entire agreement is in theoretical science, not proven science, and so the Church leaders are taking sides in an as yet unresolved dispute. Can I oppose the Bishops’ and the Pope’s opinion on the Paris agreement without sin? Am I opposing the Church when I want to see a public debate on MMGCC because I believe it is still undecided science?

Your are correct when you say:
“It seems like the basis of the entire agreement is in theoretical science, not proven science, and so the Church leaders are taking sides in an as yet unresolved dispute.”

Church leaders are entitled to free speech concerning science in the material world.
The Catholic Church’s concern is in the spiritual world. Big difference.

 

[grannymh]

This is getting to be tiresome, whether it’s evolution or climate change. “It’s just a theory…” “There is no proof…” “scientifically proven…” “…theoretical science vs. proven science…”

There is a difference between climate change and evolution theory. So far, climate change is remaining in the material world. There are parts of the evolution theory which deny some of the truths in the spiritual world of the Catholic Church.

Thread in the Apologetics Forum
Is there a Catholic problem with basic evolution theory?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1053946

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are several questions involved with the issue, and not all are clear.

First: Is there global warming? Not clear. It appears there is warming in some places and not in others. People don’t seem to actually experience it. But let’s assume it’s true for the moment.

Second: If there is global warming, is it due to CO2 in the atmosphere? Even IPCC admits it doesn’t know what portion of global warming is due to CO2 versus other factors.

Third: Is the CO2 due to burning fossil fuels? Unclear. It is beyond dispute that there are other manmade causes of increased CO2, and some causes that are not manmade. Among manmade causes, a very big one is progressive environmental degradation due to land mismanagement. About 2/3 of the grasslands of the world are presently undergoing desertification due to misuse. That’s very serious. The most serious degradation is going on in north China, Central Asia and Northern and Southern Africa, but essentially all “brittle” environments are undergoing serious changes.

To my understanding, the Pope has never decreed that fossil fuels are the cause, though he obviously believes in MMGW, and believes it’s serious. The Paris agreement is fundamentally about fossil fuel emissions.

So, while any number of clerics might think MMGW is a scientific reality beyond dispute, a very serious question remains whether the Paris agreement would have any beneficial effect at all, and particularly as applied in the U.S. It calls for a major wealth transfer from the U.S. to other nations who might or might not use it to any real effect. It does not bind any nation to do anything in particular. It’s a gesture, really. Whether gestures have any great value is, itself, subject to debate.

We are obliged to pay attention to the Pope and to the clergy, and with respect. But when it comes to secular subjects, they are not mandatory on us. The Pope might also believe the stock market will hit 22,000 in August, and he might say it, but his saying it would not require us to believe it or act in accordance with it.

 

[MaryT777]

Personally I will not give it much attention. I’ll read what they say when I have time and take it under advisement.

No, it’s not a Dogma of the faith and personally I think the Churches involvement here is bordering on another Galileo affair.

It is.

No you are not and I join you, you raise some very good points.

Exactly, sounds like another Galileo Affair.

Yes, and I do.

No your not.

Thank you for posting JameCaruso and God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[petra22]

It’s very upsetting that on one hand, (Laudato si’) it looks like our Holy Father is advocating something that is not Dogma of the faith and based on science such as Climate Change and on the other hand (Amoris laetitia) looks like he’s undermining something that is Dogma of the faith and based on scripture, such as the indissolubility of marriage.

So I think we need to pray for Our Holy Father Pope Francis, Bishops, Priests and Laity. Some tough times, stay strong.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

At least when I read this I feel like I’m not alone in the world… Thanks!

 

[PluniaZ]

We should stand united with our bishops. And pray for both them and our president.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I agree with the general sentiment expressed by the Bishops about caring for our common earth. I am also concerned about climate change and I do not dismiss the whole concept. I think there are some issues regarding what exactly is to be done and who will be paying what. I do not necessarily support the US government spending money on this initiative when we have financial concerns of our own at home, and especially when a private funder has stepped up to give money now (why did he not just do that in the first place?)

I appreciate that the Pope, Bishops etc. are in influential positions and are permitted to have opinions and express them through proper channels and with the Pope’s approval. However, I do not feel that I have to agree with them on every political position they take unrelated to dogma.

I would expect Catholics to be all over the political spectrum on this and many other political issues, due to the size of the Church and its inclusivity. I think this is a good thing. We do not want to have just one viewpoint on political and social matters and it’s necessary to study issues from a variety of different perspectives.