Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[dmelosi]

I take great amusement from the modular approach to Catholicism that many American Catholics like Bush adopt. Picking and choosing which papal doctrines to follow and which to dispose of; nice and segmented; each belief separated into little individual boxes. Thus, Bush can easily champion a particular belief (e.g. the sanctity of marriage) whilst pooh-poohing doctrines on social justice, the environment, etc.

You are saying that what the Pope is coming out with is doctrine?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I take great amusement from the modular approach to Catholicism that many American Catholics like Bush adopt. Picking and choosing which papal doctrines to follow and which to dispose of; nice and segmented; each belief separated into little individual boxes. Thus, Bush can easily champion a particular belief (e.g. the sanctity of marriage) whilst pooh-poohing doctrines on social justice, the environment, etc.

Whoa, I bow to the liberal Catholic for true finesse and etiquette as a cafeteria Catholic - trailblazers. I only hope I can reach the bar.

:tiphat:

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

:banghead: There is nothing “political” about the reality of man-made global warming outside of the US.

.

That is absolutely false. This is a political issue driven by leftists.

Here’s a good example:

Climate scientist forced from position after ‘McCarthy" style pressure’

Swedish climate scientist says he was subjected to a witch-hunt reminiscent of the McCarthy era due to his skepticism about some claims of climate scientists.

telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10834456/Climate-scientist-forced-from-position-after-McCarthy-style-pressure.html

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I take great amusement from the modular approach to Catholicism that many American Catholics like Bush adopt. Picking and choosing which papal doctrines to follow and which to dispose of; nice and segmented; each belief separated into little individual boxes. Thus, Bush can easily champion a particular belief (e.g. the sanctity of marriage) whilst pooh-poohing doctrines on social justice, the environment, etc.

Which doctrine are you referring to? I’m not aware of any new doctrines proposed by this Pope.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Ok, thanks, in other words

1. Global warmers say that CO2 increases cause temperature increases.
2. Others say temperature increases cause CO2 increases and/or don’t see (1) as established fact.

Is that right (in a nutshell)?

A more common postion among skeptics is that CO2 level increases are inconsequential with regard to earth’s temperatures. Our rise in temperature is in line with the increase that was occurring before the industrial age began. We have been warming since the 1700s when the “mini ice age” occurred, but we are still well below temperatures from 1000 years ago. The earth warms and cools in cycles.

 

[estesbob]

I wonder if Jeb Bush realizes that Pope Francis is by Education a Chemist. So when he saysleft it to sscientists… Well the Pope is a scientist!

60 years ago he got a junior college degree in chemistry. that hardly qualifies one as being a “scientist”.

 

[estesbob]

I take great amusement from the modular approach to Catholicism that many American Catholics like Bush adopt. Picking and choosing which papal doctrines to follow and which to dispose of; nice and segmented; each belief separated into little individual boxes. Thus, Bush can easily champion a particular belief (e.g. the sanctity of marriage) whilst pooh-poohing doctrines on social justice, the environment, etc.

Which Church doctrine has Bush rejected?

 

[Micosil]

That is absolutely false. This is a political issue driven by leftists.

Here’s a good example:

Climate scientist forced from position after ‘McCarthy" style pressure’

Swedish climate scientist says he was subjected to a witch-hunt reminiscent of the McCarthy era due to his skepticism about some claims of climate scientists.

telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10834456/Climate-scientist-forced-from-position-after-McCarthy-style-pressure.html

That politics often drives people, yes, including scientists, to do things isn’t the debating point here – rather, if the scientific findings of the majority of scientists themselves have a political reason to be, or if they’re actually true scientific findings in harmony with how the world, natural reality, is. That is the debating point.

Now, if America has a polarized political situation involving AGW, well, then that’s how it is, but what one cannot do is pretend the whole world is America and slander any honest person with Catholic convictions as a “non-Christian” or a “left-winger” or a “liberal”. I refuse to be lumped into this category.

That this is a thing in America is news to me, it’s why I was initially shocked and astonished as to why there was this huge backlash against what I always thought to be accepted scientific facts. Remember, I don’t live in America, so this attitude and mentality is alien to me.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Has the pope mentioned taxation or regulation in the encyclical?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Not everyone who doesn’t accept global warming as fact is a right wing American bigot who opposes all form of conservation and responsibility to regulate industrial activity to protect the planet.

 

[Micosil]

Not everyone who doesn’t accept global warming as fact is a right wing American bigot who opposes all form of conservation and responsibility to regulate industrial activity to protect the planet.

This is true, but walking away from these threads, the attitude I perceive is that either you deny a scientifically established fact because our country’s (America, which is not my country) politicians support, condone and legislate in favor of moral ills, or you are not a true Catholic.

 

[Vouthon]

You are saying that what the Pope is coming out with is doctrine?

Look here, the “social encyclicals” mention economic theories such as Marxism and Economic Liberalism, overwhelmingly in a negative and condemnatory manner. Is there no moral doctrine being propounded in this regard simply because the Pontiff is referring to economic theories?

Economics is not a value free science because economic/political theories directly affect human lives and souls, either adversely or for their betterment. The pope is therefore perfectly entitled to clarify and elucidate moral doctrine in this regard.

The Church likewise grounds its teaching on respect for the integrity of creation on moral principles, namely the violation of the seventh commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. From the Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

**Respect for the integrity of creation

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195** Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I do find it amusing when American Catholics think the pope should take their politics into consideration when writing encyclicals.

 

[FollowChrist34]

This is true, but walking away from these threads, the attitude I perceive is that either you deny a scientifically established fact because our country’s politicians support, condone and legislate in favor of moral ills, or you are not a true Catholic.

Speaking as a true Catholic, I hasten to confirm that that is not correct. I am fearful that the same irresponsible stereotyping and unjust attacks are just getting started on the other side - the side of the true social justice GW accepting Catholics I mean.

 

[Vouthon]

That politics often drives people, yes, including scientists, to do things isn’t the debating point here – rather, if the scientific findings of the majority of scientists themselves have a political reason to be, or if they’re actually true scientific findings in harmony with how the world, natural reality, is. That is the debating point.

Now, if America has a polarized political situation involving AGW, well, then that’s how it is, but what one cannot do is pretend the whole world is America and slander any honest person with Catholic convictions as a “non-Christian” or a “left-winger” or a “liberal”. I refuse to be lumped into this category.

That this is a thing in America is news to me, it’s why I was initially shocked and astonished as to why there was this huge backlash against what I always thought to be accepted scientific facts. Remember, I don’t live in America, so this attitude and mentality is alien to me.

 

[Micosil]

Speaking as a true Catholic, I hasten to confirm that that is not correct. I am fearful that the same irresponsible stereotyping and unjust attacks are just getting started on the other side - the side of the true social justice GW accepting Catholics I mean.

I do agree with that sentiment, it’s just that this AGW denial attitude is apparently rather rampant on these forums, and I mostly see it from those based in America, and of course, I am aware there are exceptions, so if it seems I was stereotyping, I apologize, but as a person that doesn’t reside in America, I hope you can see where I am coming from. Call it “culture shock” if you will.

 

[stinkcat_14]

#8 is “I trust my reading of the Church’s Voting Guide over that of someone who has a demonstrated inability to interpret the Church’s teachings”?

The Church’s voting guide is pretty vague and leaves a lot up to individual conscience. I am not arguing for voting for a democrat, but if faced with a tough decision, it would be something for discussion with a confessor, not something for posters on CAF.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I do agree with that sentiment, it’s just that this AGW denial attitude is apparently rather rampant on these forums, and I mostly see it from those based in America, and of course, I am aware there are exceptions, so if it seems I was stereotyping, I apologize, but as a person that doesn’t reside in America, I hope you can see where I am coming from. Call it “culture shock” if you will.

I do see where you are coming from and I get the culture shock - I experience it too on CAF from time to time. It has nothing to do with not being an American. Perhaps I should say that I believed in GW for years. I only started to question it recently - because I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation for why temperatures are not increasing as predicted. I am not a scientist so defer to the experts but there are legitimate questions out there. From a rational perspective, politics and religion aside, you have to review this evidence carefully. All I am saying is that I am not entirely convinced. I think a lot of people are convinced who don’t really understand the complexity of the issue much better than I do. Again, I think this is a reasonable argument - soon to be “unCatholic.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m not so sure. Using the car less and relying more on bicycles or public transportation every other day doesn’t have to be stressing, nor making sure all lights in the house are off when not totally needed; use fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent ones; change your thermostat settings to something that requires less power to run while still being comfortable; replace windows with double-glazing; cut down on hot water usage if you can help it …

None of these activities seem needlessly stressing, imho

None that the activities you listed are stressing, and such activities should always be encouraged and undertaken. But at the political level, most of us are hopeless, and at the scientific level, ignorant.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I do agree with that sentiment, it’s just that this AGW denial attitude is apparently rather rampant on these forums, and I mostly see it from those based in America, and of course, I am aware there are exceptions, so if it seems I was stereotyping, I apologize, but as a person that doesn’t reside in America, I hope you can see where I am coming from. Call it “culture shock” if you will.

Of course denial is rampant, the data doesn’t support the AGW models. The latest revision/adjustment of date to correspond to the theory should give everyone pause. If you’ve followed the issue for any length of time and observed the data/stations included and excluded from the date sets over the last 30 years, one can’t help but wonder about the research. There is really no apples-to-apples data set to assess warming or cooling trends unless you’re personally willing to go back and deconstruct the data. The latest data adjustment by some folks at NASA directly contradicts their own measurements by the two systems set up to provide the most accurate and consistent data— which show no warming occurring since they’ve been established.

ETA: AGW needs to be separated from the core issue of respect for and responsible use of resources. The questionable and debatable removed from the core tenet of church teaching. Many of the AGW cures have been simply tools for the rich to get richer, for the poor to pay more, be deprived of job opportunities, etc.