Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHESTERTONRULES said:
There is legitimate debate on the matter. Many don’t believe that CO2 is harmful in any way. In fact, it is plant food.

Greenhouses, for example, find optimal plant growth occurs in the 1200-1500 ppm range. That’s why they buy CO2 generators.

Our current CO2 level on earth is about 400 ppm. We’ll be lucky if we even get to 500 ppm.
Click to expand...
If feeding plants were the only consequence of higher CO2 levels, this argument might be somewhat compelling. But you have not even addressed the many serious claims of adverse effects, as if these improvements in the growth of some plants makes up for all those adverse effects.
 
The real problem occurs when candidates like Bush and Santorum introduce the “religious realm” into politics, which has been their wont whenever it suits their political ends. There is nothing new with these latest announcements.
 
Thomas_White said:
The real problem occurs when candidates like Bush and Santorum introduce the “religious realm” into politics, which has been their wont whenever it suits their political ends. There is nothing new with these latest announcements.
Click to expand...
Of course, they might actually believe in what they’re saying.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Of course, they might actually believe in what they’re saying.
Click to expand...
They might, of course, we will never know. Politicians on average will say anything to get elected and don’t have a good reputation for honesty. So they might believe what they say and they might not, there is no real way to tell, except for after the fact, and by then it is too late.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, but so many here are incredibly confident in their own personal interpretation. Of course, if you don’t think that the foreign wars are just, torture isn’t torture, trickle down economic policies work, the Pope doesn’t know anything about science, then it’s probably pretty easy to support the ‘pro-life’ candidate even if that candidate doesn’t do anything but the very superficial for attacking abortion.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It has been criticized, but not debunked.
Click to expand...
Possibly “debunked” is too strong, perhaps seeming to imply that no scientists held the pro-MMGW view. But “criticized” is too weak, because the “97%” consensus conclusion is not demonstrated by the sources upon which it relies. Possibly “worthless as an appeal to authority” would have been more accurate.
 
ishii said:
What were the other choices?
Click to expand...
Vote for a for non viable “perfect” candidate and then spend the next four years criticizing everybody who voted for Romney for supporting a pro- abortion candidate . Which, of course, has the same effect of having voted for Obama
 
estesbob said:
Vote for a for non viable “perfect” candidate and then spend the next four years criticizing everybody who voted for Romney for supporting a pro- abortion candidate . Which, of course, has the same effect of having voted for Obama
Click to expand...
Where I lived during the last election Romney was not a viable candidate either.
 
gilliam said:
I can’t believe Santorum has decided to take this position.
Click to expand...
I don’t usually agree with Santorum but it’s hard to argue with him here. When bishops are openly supporting homosexual unions or allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Holy Communion it’s obvious that there are more pressing problems than climate change.
 
estesbob said:
Vote for a for non viable “perfect” candidate and then spend the next four years criticizing everybody who voted for Romney for supporting a pro- abortion candidate . Which, of course, has the same effect of having voted for Obama
Click to expand...
Consequentialism.
 
ishii said:
There is no getting around that the consequence of voting for a meaningless 3rd party candidate was the election of Obama - at least in swing states.

Ishii
Click to expand...
You are saying the ends justifies the means?
 
If the ends don’t justify the means, what does?

The Catholic position is never the lesser of two evils, but the lessening of evil.

That is the goal. That is the ends that we are to work towards.
 
Darryl1958 said:
If the ends don’t justify the means, what does?

The Catholic position is never the lesser of two evils, but the lessening of evil.

That is the goal. That is the ends that we are to work towards.
Click to expand...
Then we should always vote for truly pro-life candidates, not pro-abortion candidates, right?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Then we should always vote for truly pro-life candidates, not pro-abortion candidates, right?
Click to expand...
You should always vote for the most pro-life viable candidate in the race .

"You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion."He adds that voters "may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone

Cardinel Burke
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top