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

[Erikaspirit16]

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

Thanks for the reference, but I read the first 7 pages of that thread and saw nothing new. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that denies the religious doctrines of the Catholic church, and vice versa. Certain individuals or schools of thought can hold opinions that either deny the scientific theory or the religious doctrines, but that doesn’t mean they speak for everyone.

Not the place to debate all that here, but I just didn’t want your statement to remain unchallenged.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Thank you, all of you, for your counsel on both sides of this issue. I feel better educated on the subject for your comments, all of them respectful both to me and to Church leaders.

I remain straddling the fence, unable to profess either for or against the question of man made global climate change. I fear the greater question is not whether climate change can be significantly influenced by mankind, but whether the Church should be taking sides in this or any debate not clearly informed by Church teaching, or seemingly so, anyway.

While I would like to err on the side of caution, I also do not want to err on the side of causing a significant, perhaps very harmful, increase in U.S. indebtedness and loss of jobs. It appears this remains one of those questions that has to be left to the conscience and inherent wisdom of each individual.

Believe me when I say that I have been a proponent of both sides of the MMGCC issue at one time or another and now I am sitting on the sideline waiting and wanting to be convinced, or to convince myself, which way to go, or if to remain forever neutral.It looks like only some significant advancement in scientific knowledge will ever be able to bring all of us into one accord.

At least this conversation has served to relieve me of any scruples I may have entertained on whether I was being disloyal to Holy Mother Church in my indecision. So thank you again, all of you, for weighing in on my questions. Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[Ender]

First: Is there global warming? Not clear. It appears there is warming in some places and not in others.

Clearly there has been warming over the last 150 years. Whether warming is continuing is questionable; whether warming will resume is unknown.

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.

This is the question in a nutshell. According to a study that was just published in April, CO2 may have had very little to do with the warming we’ve experienced.These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature time series that were analyzed.
Are their conclusions valid? I have no idea. It will be interesting though to see how this is responded to.

Ender

 

[commenter]

I used to work at an office building where the PA system constantly made announcements, many of them mundane, to the point that people tuned it out. The joke was that some day they would have one announcement about conserving office supplies…then another announcement about there being a shooter in the building right now…then a third announcement about the United Way collection deadline coming up.

The Church spoke with more authority when it spoke out less frequently.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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?

I view it the same way a liberal would view the USCCB’s s statements about marriage. I’d ignore it…,

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for the reference, but I read the first 7 pages of that thread and saw nothing new. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that denies the religious doctrines of the Catholic church, and vice versa. Certain individuals or schools of thought can hold opinions that either deny the scientific theory or the religious doctrines, but that doesn’t mean they speak for everyone.

Not the place to debate all that here, but I just didn’t want your statement to remain unchallenged.

My apology. That thread took off like a bolt of lightening. Finally, I was able to post 169 in response to your post 144.

Usually, I stay away from broad statements such as “denies the religious doctrines of the Catholic church.”

 

[OraLabora]

I view it the same way a liberal would view the USCCB’s s statements about marriage. I’d ignore it…,

So the Catholic Church really is a cafeteria where you can pick and choose what you like

You know what, there are advantages to actually listening to this issue, and putting some of the recommendations into practice. Here’s what I did: traded down to a smaller, base-model more fuel-efficient car when the time came to trade; sold my gas-burning toy (4-seat airplane) that burned 40 litres of leaded aviation gas an hour, and generally try to restrict my driving to actual need (which alas living in a rural area pretty much means for everything), and try to combine errands to make each trip count for more.

I slowed down to the speed limit, try to drive efficiently (smooth starts, anticipate red lights, coast to stops, don’t get impatient and tailgate if the guy ahead of me is doing 10 km/h less than I am, in short drive more zen-like).

Here’s the kicker: not only am I helping to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, BUT I am saving a fair bit of change in the process: I paid cash for my smaller car instead of having to take out a loan for a more luxurious model; I’ve reduced my fuel use for by 20% by driving a more efficient car, and by a further 20% by adapting my driving techniques, and I’ve greatly reduced my stress levels by taking a zen approach to driving, and the fuel I burned to amuse myself in my plane on weekends was enough to keep my car going for two or 3 weeks of normal driving.

There’s certainly plenty we can do to help the environment. And even if we don’t change global warming by doing it, we will at least save ourselves a handsome chunk of change. Someday it will hit upon some people that one can be happy without driving a big honkin’ SUV or pick-up truck when one really just needs a decent hatchback, and that “saving” the environment also equals saving money!

 

[Ender]

So the Catholic Church really is a cafeteria where you can pick and choose what you like.

Not at all, but let’s be clear about what the church does and does not require. We are obliged to assent to doctrines. We are permitted to dissent from opinions, which is clearly what the views expressed on global warming are.

There’s certainly plenty we can do to help the environment.

And I would support doing whatever is helpful and reasonable, which is not to say that cutting back on CO2 emissions is either.

And even if we don’t change global warming by doing it, we will at least save ourselves a handsome chunk of change. Someday it will hit upon some people that one can be happy without driving a big honkin’ SUV or pick-up truck when one really just needs a decent hatchback, and that “saving” the environment also equals saving money!

Changing one’s habits to save money is quite reasonable. Believing that one can “save” the environment by buying a smaller car is quite the opposite.

Ender

 

[mrdrifter]

Regardless of one’s position on climate change, be aware that the Holy See speaks from a position of relative ignorance of the issue, their knowledge being third hand, their moral analysis therefore questionable. That they would insert themselves into the debate in the manner in which they have says something about those involved, sad to say. Listen politely, but be careful not to foster divisions within the Church.

 

[rock022]

Well here are my two cents.

I believe there is Global Warming, but I do not subscribe to Al Gore version, just like I believe Evolution but don’t subscribe to Darwinism.

I read what the USCCB has to say. I notice a lack of scientific explanation. Actually I do not believe there is even mention of science in them.

But this is what I found to be the reason.
*“as an important international mechanism to promote environmental stewardship and encourage climate change mitigation”
*
The church backs the accord because it promotes and encourage, the church seems to see this agreement as a foundation for future agreements. That is how I see it unless of course my two cents are from the banana republic, and are worth nothing.

But the USCCB two cents are worth a lot more. So even if I have reservations about this. I listen to the Bishops.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Well here are my two cents.

I believe there is Global Warming, but I do not subscribe to Al Gore version, just like I believe Evolution but don’t subscribe to Darwinism.

I read what the USCCB has to say. I notice a lack of scientific explanation. Actually I do not believe there is even mention of science in them.

But this is what I found to be the reason.
*“as an important international mechanism to promote environmental stewardship and encourage climate change mitigation”
*
The church backs the accord because it promotes and encourage, the church seems to see this agreement as a foundation for future agreements. That is how I see it unless of course my two cents are from the banana republic, and are worth nothing.

But the USCCB two cents are worth a lot more. So even if I have reservations about this. I listen to the Bishops.

The Church may well see it as you say, but shouldn’t the Church take note of the US’s withdrawal on the basis of unfairness to the US, and not because of any objection to the end goals of the agreement? An unfair agreement, one that will place the burden squarely on the US to its detriment in terms of indebtedness and loss of jobs, should not be the foundation for future agreements. The US did say it would like to negotiate a fairer agreement, so what’s wrong with that, and why do the Bishops seem to ignore the fairness issue? I know you can’t speak for the Bishops, but for me, any agreement is not necessarily better than no agreement at all; it must be fair. The US is tired, in our President’s view, of taking the brunt of unfair agreements with the other nations of the world.

 

[abucs]

I view it the same way a liberal would view the USCCB’s s statements about marriage. I’d ignore it…,

 

[abucs]

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.

…

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

 

[lynnvinc]

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?

Yes, they do accept the science, as does nearly everyone else in the world who has looked into the issue. Even North Korea has signed onto the Paris Agreement.

You might want to read Pope Francis’s LAUDATO SI, which explains climate change and the moral imperative to mitigate it, in addition to other serious environmental harms that threaten humanity and God’s creation. See: w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

The Catholic CC denialists (who are in the minority) used to pooh-pooh JPII and BXVI for their acceptance of anthropogenic CC, saying they aren’t scientists and don’t know what they are talking about. However, Pope Francis does have education in science, so they can’t say that anymore.

Best just to steer clear of those CC denialists, esp Trump and his outright lies about how the agreement would be bad for the US.

 

[mrdrifter]

However, Pope Francis does have education in science, so they can’t say that anymore.

According to Thomas Reese, SJ…
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/does-pope-francis-have-masters-degree-chemistry
…we can say his science education was “…quite a bit better … than what we’d find in a North American high school.”

 

[XndrK]

Yes, they do accept the science, as does nearly everyone else in the world who has looked into the issue. Even North Korea has signed onto the Paris Agreement.

You might want to read Pope Francis’s LAUDATO SI, which explains climate change and the moral imperative to mitigate it, in addition to other serious environmental harms that threaten humanity and God’s creation. See: w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

The Catholic CC denialists (who are in the minority) used to pooh-pooh JPII and BXVI for their acceptance of anthropogenic CC, saying they aren’t scientists and don’t know what they are talking about. However, Pope Francis does have education in science, so they can’t say that anymore.

Best just to steer clear of those CC denialists, esp Trump and his outright lies about how the agreement would be bad for the US.

For the record, Francis has a degree in chemistry specifically, so he isn’t an expert on climate science.

But the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming.

 

[Ender]

Yes, they do accept the science, as does nearly everyone else in the world who has looked into the issue.

This is grossly incorrect. It is an slogan without substance.

Even North Korea has signed onto the Paris Agreement.

Well there’s a real endorsement.

You might want to read Pope Francis’s LAUDATO SI, which explains climate change and the moral imperative to mitigate it, in addition to other serious environmental harms that threaten humanity and God’s creation.

We have a moral obligation to mitigate harms. We have no obligation whatever to believe someone’s opinions about what is or is not harmful.

The Catholic CC denialists (who are in the minority) used to pooh-pooh JPII and BXVI for their acceptance of anthropogenic CC, saying they aren’t scientists and don’t know what they are talking about. However, Pope Francis does have education in science, so they can’t say that anymore.

The thought that we should accept Francis’ opinion on the matter because he has some science background is truly preposterous. The fact that he is pope lends no authority to his scientific credentials, which, compared with those of the actual scientists involved in this study, are unimpressive.

Best just to steer clear of those CC denialists, esp Trump and his outright lies about how the agreement would be bad for the US.

It is hard to overlook the irony of Catholics pushing their Catholic credentials and moral outrage in an area where the church is silent while at the same time ignoring the clear doctrines regarding slander, the obligations of charity, and the prohibition against rash judgment.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

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

Exactly, sounds like another Galileo Affair.

This is quite the opposite of how the Church responded to Galileo. In the case of global warming, the Church is open and responding to scientific evidence. It is the dissenters who are not open to change.

 

[pnewton]

The Church may well see it as you say, but shouldn’t the Church take note of the US’s withdrawal on the basis of unfairness to the US, and not because of any objection to the end goals of the agreement?

That would be a legitimate point, if any of it was true. I guess in a sense it is a matter of opinion, but consider that under the accord, which is just that, not a treaty, each country participates voluntarily, and each country makes its own decisions on how best to proceed with the environmental goals. The president was dishonest when he presented his speech on the withdrawal, exaggerating the cost and commitment.

 

[pnewton]

The problem with ignoring the Church is that it is a hard habit to break. Few people that have split from the Church do so overnight or over one issue. Even Martin Luther did not start with a desire to split from the Church, but to reform the Church, a noble goal. It is probably more understandable to dissent from the guidance (not the teaching) of the Church when there is a minority disagreement within the ranks of the Church. But some issues are so clear that Church leaders, liberals and conservatives are almost completely united.

In the case of global warming, even if one is skeptical, the possibility that you and your minority might be wrong should at least be enough to justify caution. Prudence dictates that we should not be using finite resources as if they are infinite, or putting stuff in the air that might kill people. If a mushroom was said to be fatally toxic in multiple guides on mushrooms, one would not eat it just because he read on article on line crediting this mushroom to giving one a long life.