Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[anthrogirl]

Except that the science behind man-made climate change often leads to false conclusions, and actually actions taken to address the imaginary problem of man-made climate change cause more extensive damage to the environment. Alternative energy infrastructure has caused significant damage in many cases.

Climate change (almost all of it is natural) is nowhere near the matter of abortion, and neither is suicide, war or the death penalty. The Church leadership has made that clear many times.

I’m going with the majority of scientists and the Church on this one. We saw scientists testify in court that smoking did not cause lung cancer. We had scientists say that radiation did not harm humans. These scientists were in the minority just as we see today with climate change denying scientists. Climate change is a life issue. People are dying and people are being displaced already. The best we can do now is try to stem the assault on our environment with the hopes that things wont get too bad in the future. If climate change marches on as is, a global crisis is likely.

We are multi-taskers. We can address the life issues of climate change AND the death penalty AND abortions AND suicide equally, all at the same time. As Catholics, we cannot decide which life issue is more important and which demands more attention from the Church. They are all equally important and they each demand in a very real moral sense, our attention. Picking one over the other is purely personal, informed by our politics, our economics, our biases, etc.

“My dear friends, God’s creation is one and it is good. The concerns for nonviolence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection on the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Address, Welcoming Celebration by Young People for World Youth Day in Sydney, Australia, July 17, 2008

 

[anthrogirl]

Sorry anthrogirl. “climate change” is not on par with abortion on the moral gravity scale. If it is though, perhaps you could point out to the specific teaching which states as such.

Ishii

We often allow our personal biases, our politics, our world views to inform our decisions of whose life is more important than another’s. But we cannot overlay that onto our Church. The Church sees every life as sacred and deserving of dignity.

“Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment, and damages society.” — Pope Benedict. Caritas in Veritate, (par. 51).

 

[graciew]

including Noble prize winners

I mentioned Nobel Prize winners in another thread ,not that they are directly related to the encyclical nor Pope Francis now.
Just clarifying in case my post has to do with this.
God bless.

 

[Darryl1958]

Pope Francis has framed the climate change issue as a life issue and I expect he will continue down that path in his encyclical. The Church sees opposition to its life issues (abortion, suicide, war, death penalty, etc) everyday of the week, even from its own members. People who oppose action on climate change will be no different. The Vatican experts in our Church’s doctrine see climate change as aligned with the Church’s call for life and dignity. People can and will oppose the Church’s stance on this just as we see people opposing the Church on other life issues.

Action for the environment is a good thing. The question is which action.
Certainly, abortion and other means to reduce the environmental footprint of human, and Western human populations in particular, has been overtly framed by men of science as a rational means to reduce that footprint.
That is rational. That is science. It is also mumbo-jumbo, much like all the socialist mumbo-jumbo that goes for action on the environment too.

Certainly, to the extent that socialism involves the privations of celibate monastic life, all of us as Catholics can stand behind that kind of action, for those whom the Spirit directs into that kind of lifestyle. For those who propose socialism as the action, that is what Christian Socialism involves.
Go for it! Be the Change!

The devil is not in the rhetoric of getting behind generic action against the deniers and for the alarmists. The devil is in the details.

 

[ishii]

We often allow our personal biases, our politics, our world views to inform our decisions of whose life is more important than another’s. But we cannot overlay that onto our Church. The Church sees every life as sacred and deserving of dignity.

“Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment, and damages society.” — Pope Benedict. Caritas in Veritate, (par. 51).

I see. So not putting your garbage in the correct recycling bin is on par with aborting babies in terms of moral gravity. Got it.

Ishii

 

[dcana]

These scientists were in the minority just as we see today with climate change denying scientists

I’m not taking any stand on the man-made global warming issue though I might appear to be. I don’t know enough about it to come to any conclusion.

I just wanted to point out that “denier” is a rather interesting choice of a word used by the MMGW supporters to refer to those of the opposing viewpoint. I’m not referring to you, specifically, anthrogirl - you are simply using the word that is commonly used. Where else is the word “denier” used? Well, one example comes quickly to mind: the Holocaust “deniers”. Sort of as if to imply that if you deny the reality (or “reality”) of MMGW, you are as ignorant and clueless as those who deny the Holocaust, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence (for the Holocaust, I mean). IOW, the implication is that the evidence for MMGW is just as overwhelming as the evidence for the Holocaust, but instead of hating the Jews, you want to hate Mother Earth. Didn’t someone say something about how the issue is “settled science?”

Peace and blessings

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is merely more confirmation to the contention that the the environment is being used as a ploy to advance the Marxist cause and the push for radical change to the economy along socialist lines.

What aspect of Marxism is being pushed here? A pollution tax or environmental regulations may be prudent or imprudent, but they are far from Marxism.

 

[phil19034]

So, suggesting that there are more important issues to deal with than the cult of “climate change” is heresy??–ISIS slaughtering Christians, Ireland voting in gay “marriage”, the 24/7 assault the Church and freedom of religion in general are under by Big “Kulture”, etc.?
Then I’m a “heretic” too. I think there are far more important issues to deal with than the “environment”–but I’m not a heretic! I have a right to question the pope’s judgment on anything not dealing with faith and morals. So does Santorum–so do you.

If the Pope says it’s going to rain, I’m not obligated to carry an umbrella. Unfortunately, this encyclical’s may be almost literally saying just that. We’re talking weather here.

I NEVER said there were not “more important issues.” But I think the Pope is VERY capable of multitasking and preaching on everything.

The Pope talks about everything in his daily homilies, but the news often doesn’t report what he says unless it’s a message that the liberal media want to use for their agenda.

Also we Americans need to STOP looking at the world through American eyes. In the US, loggers often replant trees when they cut them down, that way their will be stock in the future. Are they doing that in the Amazon? No.

In America, it is illegal to sell products made from endangered animals and people would be horrified to buy products made from elephant tusks or whale blubber. But that’s not the case in other nations.

Finally, I also said that belief in climate change is not relevant. You don’t have to believe in climate change to realize that we humans (not specifically Americans) are abusing the planet and/or not taking care of it like we could.

 

[Darryl1958]

What aspect of Marxism is being pushed here? A pollution tax or environmental regulations may be prudent or imprudent, but they are far from Marxism.

To go back a few steps, when I made the comment against the ploy of socialist transformation of the economy in response to the environment, the response I received was not that this was not happening, but that Jesus was a socialist.

That is confirmation that the propensity of this push is toward socialist transformation of the economy.

 

[stinkcat_14]

To go back a few steps, when I made the comment against the ploy of socialist transformation of the economy in response to the environment, the response I received was not that this was not happening, but that Jesus was a socialist.

That is confirmation that the propensity of this push is toward socialist transformation of the economy.

The point I am interested in is what is the socialist transformation of the economy that you are talking about. For example, it cannot be regulation, because that is not socialist. It can not be tax policy such as cap and trade, because that is not socialist either. So where does the socialism come in here? Who is proposing socialism and what exactly are they proposing.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sorry anthrogirl. “climate change” is not on par with abortion on the moral gravity scale. If it is though, perhaps you could point out to the specific teaching which states as such.

Ishii

I guess the order of moral gravity might be:
Shooting and killing someone in cold blood is worse than having an abortion (or maybe the same), which is worse than persuading people not to reduce their greenhouse gases by wrongly telling them that AGW is not happening (as if they are a science authority with the expertise and right to tell people that & thereby causing others to fall into sin), which is worse than emitting greenhouse gases well beyond what is necessary to live a good and decent life (that is, refusing to become energy/resource efficient/conservative within one’s means and go on alt energy when feasible when there are plenty of off-the-shelf options).

Since I’m not shooting or killing anyone or having an abortion, I need to focus on my more minor sins, such as emitting greenhouse gases beyond what is necessary.

Others in worse state of sin should be focusing on stopping killing people in cold blood and having abortions. That certainly comes first, but they can also multi-task and reduce their GHG emissions at the same time

 

[Darryl1958]

The point I am interested in is what is the socialist transformation of the economy that you are talking about. For example, it cannot be regulation, because that is not socialist. It can not be tax policy such as cap and trade, because that is not socialist either. So where does the socialism come in here? Who is proposing socialism and what exactly are they proposing.

It comes from a concerted effort to over-regulate and shut down entire industries from people who are anti-capitalist.

 

[phil19034]

I have bold underlined what I think are very lame strawmen arguments.

I am not sure that the left wants to kill children and the elderly. Nor does the right want to “kill the trees.” What a simplistic caricature. Moreover, which do you think is worse, logging to produce lumber and pulp for paper products, or allowing the killing of the unborn and elderly (through euthanasia) ? I would say what the left is doing is far worse, wouldn’t you? Yet, you act as though they are morally equivalent, both calling for the “catholic middle way.”

Finally, you say, “I am Catholic first, Republican second.” Good for you. So am I. But being catholic first does not mean that I have to accept the dubious science of man made global warming. The conservative view on the environment is that we need to balance both the needs of the economy (i.e. jobs, the livelihood of workers, etc) and the environment. For example, we shouldn’t place the spotted owl, or the snail darter above the needs of working families. Jobs for working families is more important than the habitat of the snail darter or spotted owl. This does not conflict with Catholic teaching. If you disagree, I challenge you to point out how it does.

Ishii

But we are NOT talking about American politics here. That is NOT what is happening in other nations. They are NOT taking a balance.

Btw - I was NOT attempting to make the two morally equal. I was pointing out two extreams and attempting to illustrate that it does not have to be a it the extremes.

There are ways to protect the environment AND the economy at the same time. But their might hurt some irresponsible companies who prefer to litigate vs change because it’s cheaper to litigate.

Additionally, you don’t have to believe in climate change. Pollution is real. Over hunting is real. In the last few hundred years, we have burned through out natural resources faster than the rest of human history combined. Don’t believe in climate change, fine. But if we don’t change the way we use our natural resources, we won’t have them in the future.

We should be caring about our great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren as much as we care about our future children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren (depending on what you currently have).

May The Lord grant us all wisdom and understanding. Amen.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It comes from a concerted effort to over-regulate and shut down entire industries from people who are anti-capitalist.

A couple of questions here: How do we know when regulation becomes socialist? In the US, neither party has done anything significant to reduce the amount of regulation, so are we already socialist? Is Cap and trade socialist?

Also, who are our anti-capitalist politicians? In the US, perhaps Bernie Sanders is one, but he is just one person with relatively little influence. Some might argue that Obama is anti-capitalist, but the 1% have done better under Obama than they did under Bush. So is Bush an anti-capitalist? How do we tell when someone is anti-capitalist? Perhaps I am anti-capitalist and I don’t even know it.

 

[estesbob]

Sorry anthrogirl. “climate change” is not on par with abortion on the moral gravity scale. If it is though, perhaps you could point out to the specific teaching which states as such.

Ishii

But we are going to see Democrat Catholic claim it as justification to evil anyway. A left-leaning political adviser has already claimed that Pope Francis’s liberalism is going to help Hillary immensely . Of course to date Pope Francis ha not said anything any other pope has not also said and it is unlikely that his encyclical is going to support any of the radical "solutions " being proposed to mitigate “the problem” but that will not matter to Democrats Catholics. When defending the on indefensible any excuse will do

 

[estesbob]

We often allow our personal biases, our politics, our world views to inform our decisions of whose life is more important than another’s. But we cannot overlay that onto our Church. The Church sees every life as sacred and deserving of dignity.

“Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment, and damages society.” — Pope Benedict. Caritas in Veritate, (par. 51).

Where does the pope say care for the environment translates into a requirement to support massive new tax andregulation schemes ? Can you point out a single poster that Has denied the fact we need to care for the environment ? Can a person care for the environment and not believe in AGW?

 

[lynnvinc]

Just read this: “Angry US Republicans tell Pope Francis to ‘stick with his job and we’ll stick with ours’” - theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/climate-change-conservatives-catholic-teaching

Of course it is Pope Francis’s job to guide us away from the sin of causing climate change and all its knock on effects which lead to harming people and others of God’s creation. We just need to stop killing and harming people in whatever ways we are doing such, and he should be telling us that. Afterall, it is also in the 10 Commandments.

However, it is funny that Santorum should say he’s sticking to his job. He most certainly in NOT doing do. As a policy-maker, he should be helping us to mitigate climate change and seeing to it that the government mitigates climate change. He has abnegated his duties. As a policy-maker he should NOT even be requiring 95% certainty on a serious threat such as climate change (that 95% confidence having been reached in 1995), but should be acting with PRUDENCE even in cases with less than 95% confidence on very serious threats, such as climate change.

Santorum – do your job and stay out of my religion and what my pope is telling us to do!!!

 

[stinkcat_14]

Where does the pope care for the environment translates into a requirement to support massive new tax andregulation schemes ?

There is no requirement to support such schemes. On the other hand, nobody can seriously argue (as some have here) that these schemes are socialist in nature. It is certainly a reasonable thing to debate, how if at all, governments should respond to climate change or other environmental issues.

 

[estesbob]

Just read this: “Angry US Republicans tell Pope Francis to ‘stick with his job and we’ll stick with ours’” - theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/climate-change-conservatives-catholic-teaching

Of course it is Pope Francis’s job to guide us away from the sin of causing climate change and all its knock on effects which lead to harming people and others of God’s creation. We just need to stop killing and harming people in whatever ways we are doing such, and he should be telling us that. Afterall, it is also in the 10 Commandments.

However, it is funny that Santorum should say he’s sticking to his job. He most certainly in NOT doing do. As a policy-maker, he should be helping us to mitigate climate change and seeing to it that the government mitigates climate change. He has abnegated his duties. As a policy-maker he should NOT even be requiring 95% certainty on a serious threat such as climate change (that 95% confidence having been reached in 1995), but should be acting with PRUDENCE even in cases with less than 95% confidence on very serious threats, such as climate change.

Santorum – do your job and stay out of my religion and what my pope is telling us to do!!!

I read your article . Funny part is the only Republican it quotes is Rick Santorum . And of course it has a usual juvenile attacks on those who dare question AGW calling them deniers and invoking the usual suspects explaining as to why the Republican Party is going to collapse when the people figure out how evil they are - that is unless the world as we know it comes to an end because of their refusal to implement massive new tax and regulations schemes

It is interesting that when Democrat Catholic politicians oppose the teachings of the Pope (which happens on an almost a daily basis ) we don’t hear outraged demands about them needing to stay out of our religion and what are Popis telling us to do.

 

[estesbob]

There is no requirement to support such schemes. On the other hand, nobody can seriously argue (as some have here) that these schemes are socialist in nature. It is certainly a reasonable thing to debate, how if at all, governments should respond to climate change or other environmental issues.

call it you want but they would be devastating to the poor & middle class in this country and would have an even more negative impact on those living in developing countries.

Fortunately I am sure the pope is going to mention in his encyclical the need not to overburden the poor with whatever solutions governments implement . Unfortunately I believe that most of the left well ignore this .