If you think the green movement is harmless and consistent with your faith

[4elise]

There’s an exception to every rule, even, it would seem, to the rule that there’s an exception to every rule. That’s why I said “for the most part.”

true… but I disagree that this is a rule - I know many ‘greenies’ who are ‘conservative’ so I could make as easy an argument in the other direction - it is just the “labeling” something or some group as important as caring for creation as being either liberal or conservative that IMHO gets us into trouble.

 

[sedonaman]

true… but I disagree that this is a rule - I know many ‘greenies’ who are ‘conservative’ so I could make as easy an argument in the other direction - it is just the “labeling” something or some group as important as caring for creation as being either liberal or conservative that IMHO gets us into trouble.

And I think that one group wrapping itself in the self-righteous mantle of “caring for creation” gets us into more trouble because it automatically labels other groups as not caring for creation. Sorta like the group that labels itself as “anti-war” implies that those who disagree with their policies are “pro-war” – something no sane person would be for.

 

[4elise]

And I think that one group wrapping itself in the self-righteous mantle of “caring for creation” gets us into more trouble because it automatically labels other groups as not caring for creation. Sorta like the group that labels itself as “anti-war” implies that those who disagree with their policies are “pro-war” – something no sane person would be for.

What group are you saying is self-righteous in saying that they are ‘caring for creation’?

Enviromentalist? Catholics? Liberals? Conservatives?

Caring for creation is EVERYONE’s job isn’t it?

I know some people who are SO good at recycling - and they make me feel a bit guilty - and I strive to be more like them… I know some people who are SO good about using as little gas as possible, and I’d like to be more like them - but I certainly don’t always do as well as they - so yes sometimes I feel a little guilty… I keep trying to do the best I can and my point is that as Catholics we should embrace the ‘green movement’ and help people understand WHY it matters.

Blessings,

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

There is so much more to the Green movement than sex and birth control. Being Green is about being good stewards to the Earth that God gave us. We are an NFP practicing couple, after learning what hormonal birth control does to a woman;s body and to the environment I stopped using them. We used birth control pills, briefly in the beginning of our marriage, because we thought that is what everyone did. I have always been what some would call Green and for me it is more of a healthy life style. There are many other Green/Crunchy Catholics out there too. I suppose we could take on the birth control issue more and educate the public about birth control.

Amen, sistah! :: applauds:: I hate it when people get hung up on Just One Issue and fail to see the missing forest for the tree stumps. Being Green is really about Using God’s Gifts To Us Prudently. It’s why I recycle as much as I can, use reusable shopping bags, use public transportation, and buy books used as often as I can.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

And I think that one group wrapping itself in the self-righteous mantle of “caring for creation” gets us into more trouble because it automatically labels other groups as not caring for creation. Sorta like the group that labels itself as “anti-war” implies that those who disagree with their policies are “pro-war” – something no sane person would be for.

I’ve met a few people who were rather rabidly anti-Green, people who pretty much considered any conservation work to be somehow anti-human, even though we humans are as dependent on the earth as everything else on this planet, even using the “fill the earth and subdue it” line in Genesis to back themselves up. I couldn’t help giving this person the “what are you on?” look. Nowhere does that line say “fill the earth, subdue it, and misuse all the resources to the point that earth can’t sustain your numbers any more”.

 

[4elise]

Amen, sistah! :: applauds:: I hate it when people get hung up on Just One Issue and fail to see the missing forest for the tree stumps. Being Green is really about Using God’s Gifts To Us Prudently. It’s why I recycle as much as I can, use reusable shopping bags, use public transportation, and buy books used as often as I can.

:tiphat:

 

[Contarini]

And I think that one group wrapping itself in the self-righteous mantle of “caring for creation” gets us into more trouble because it automatically labels other groups as not caring for creation. Sorta like the group that labels itself as “anti-war” implies that those who disagree with their policies are “pro-war” – something no sane person would be for.

Or the group that labels itself as “prolife”? Why don’t you mention them?

I can’t see that your criticism, if valid, would apply to this group any less–perhaps even more so, since after all, Christian environmentalists do believe in caring for all of creation, and antiwar people are really antiwar, but many “prolife” people use the term only to mean “pro-unborn life,” which is a more obvious distortion of the term.

That being said, I find your entire argument illogical. I think that all three “self-righteous” labels are entirely justified as describing the ideals of the groups in question (though I wish more “prolifers” would embrace a fuller understanding of the term).

I think that calling people “self-righteous” is generally unjustified. It’s almost always a smear tactic used to try to blunt a moral argument without taking the trouble to refute it.

Edwin

 

[benedictus2]

Or the group that labels itself as “prolife”? Why don’t you mention them?

I can’t see that your criticism, if valid, would apply to this group any less–perhaps even more so, since after all, Christian environmentalists do believe in caring for all of creation, and antiwar people are really antiwar,

Hogwash. Some anti-war people are not anti-war but more anti establishment. Some so called “Christiain” environmentalists are just environmentalist but can hardly be labelled Christian when part of their solution is population control with utter disregard for Christian tenets.

but many “prolife” people use the term only to mean “pro-unborn life,” which is a more obvious distortion of the term.

Really? You know for a fact that “many” pro life people are only pro-life when it comes to unborn yet would be pro-death when it comes to other matters?

That being said, I find your entire argument illogical. I think that all three “self-righteous” labels are entirely justified as describing the ideals of the groups in question (though I wish more “prolifers” would embrace a fuller understanding of the term).

And I wish so called Christian environmentalist would truly espouse the Christian part of caring for the environment.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve met a few people who were rather rabidly anti-Green, people who pretty much considered any conservation work to be somehow anti-human, even though we humans are as dependent on the earth as everything else on this planet,

Minor correction. We humans are not dependent on the earth. We are dependent on God. It is when we are focused on God - on obeying His will - that everything becomes ordered. That is the only time that we become true caretakers of creation. Without this focus, we end up making a god out of the environment.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Minor correction. We humans are not dependent on the earth. We are dependent on God. It is when we are focused on God - on obeying His will - that everything becomes ordered. That is the only time that we become true caretakers of creation. Without this focus, we end up making a god out of the environment.

We aren’t angels: we have bodies and as such, those bodies have physical needs that have to be taken care of so we can serve God. We need to eat, and we need clean water, and we need clothing and we need shelter. Where does the food, the water and the wherewithal to make clothing and build houses come from? From the earth. Yes, God created the earth, and yes, He sometimes allows miracles to happen where scanty resources are sometimes multiplied, but that doesn’t always happen and it’s a bit imprudent to expect it to. The problem is, the earth is in peril because of over-industrialization and the use of toxic pesticides that poison the earth and the animals which God put on to be, as C.S. Lewis put it, “our servants, our companions and our playmates”. I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said “Man does not live on the Word of God alone, but on bread, as well.”

 

[Contarini]

Hogwash. Some anti-war people are not anti-war but more anti establishment.

You challenge me below for my claim about “prolifers,” even though it’s well-documented that many prolifers support war and capital punishment. Yet here you make a vague and unverifiable claim. How would one tell whether a person was more antiwar or antiestablishment? Why are the two antithetical to each other? This claim makes no sense.

It’s like the liberal claim that prolife folks are more anti-women’s-rights than prolife. Note that I did not make that claim. I made a verifiable claim about positions publicly espoused by many people who oppose abortion.

Some so called “Christiain” environmentalists are just environmentalist but can hardly be labelled Christian when part of their solution is population control with utter disregard for Christian tenets.

Clearly we have a different understanding of the centrality of the anti-birth-control position to Christianity! I say this as someone who does not resolutely disbelieve the Catholic position, and indeed is largely persuaded by it. But to suggest that someone who disagrees with official Catholic teaching on this point is not even a Christian is using the word “Christian” in an extremely narrow sense! Not an orthodox Catholic, sure. But in your view are only orthodox Catholics Christians?

Logically, you appear to be arguing that one can’t be a “Christian environmentalist” unless one holds the Catholic view of birth control.

Really? You know for a fact that “many” pro life people are only pro-life when it comes to unborn yet would be pro-death when it comes to other matters?

I was thinking primarily of politicians, but yes, I do know other folks of whom this is true as well.

Edwin

 

[LittleDavid]

Here are the stats:
1 Billion on the Earth in…1804
2 Billion…1927
3 Billion…1959
4 Billion…1974
5 Billion…1987
6 Billion…1999
7 Billion…Oct.31,2011 (source=United Nations)

Everyone will have there own take on it…but glad to see people are at least thinking
about it! Since NFP is the accepted way to control birth in the CC, is it even encouraged?(from the top)
I am not a Catholic and would like to know…grace and peace.

(By the way it does lend some credibility to your post if you state your sources.)

 

[the2112]

Hi, I like never post on the forums here, but I’ve been following this topic for quite awhile now, and I’m surprised no one has brought up Fr. Frank Pavone’s article about overpopulation (or any of the points made in it), which is right here on Catholic.com:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/planet-un-parenthood

It’s quite interesting. Especially how he references the statements made by Planned Parenthood and partial-birth abortionist Warren Hern about their take on overpopulation (who, BTW, as you’ll see, are promoting the idea of overpopulation).

Speaking of abortion, to the people who believe in overpopulation, but don’t think it’ll lead to forced abortion: What would you think of a government that like found a way to pressure women into having abortions after they’ve had a certain amount of kids (by guilt tripping, and/or even imposing a “sin tax” on women who don’t abort)? Could this happen, and maybe be justifiable? If [you think] it would be justifiable, would you still consider yourself pro-“choice”?
Sure, you could say this could be prevented by heavily encouraging or even forcing every couple to use contraception, but what about when contraception fails? BTW, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 54% of women who have abortions report that they had used some sort of contraception (either the pill or a condom) the month they got pregnant (76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported they had used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported they used their method correctly). So failures are likely. Not only that, right before the pill came out, Pope Paul VI said if the pill becomes widely used, abortion will become legal. And he was right.

BTW, here’s the source for the contraception statistics: guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Also, here’s another article that has some quotes from Warren Hern and how he believes the human race to be a “cancer” to the world:

catholicexchange.com/2009/08/10/121076/

Here’s the Esquire article about Warren Hern (Warning: Strong language):

esquire.com/features/abortion-doctor-warren-hern-0909-2

And when you read about how he believes the entire pro-life movement is violent, look at the NAF’s Violence and Disruption Statistics:

prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/stats_table2010.pdf

…and notice how many cases of picketing there are compared to the amount of violence committed; especially in the last 10 years.

Sorry, I find this Warren Hern guy’s rants and paranoia hilarious.