Pope calls for action on climate change

[Shin]

The thing is, nowadays the global Environmental movement is so fundamentally corrupt, especially the activist organizations that lead the charge – Unless a movement to create a genuinely Catholic Environmentalism were formed, any speeches in general support of it I find quite a cause for concern.

A proper means to promote responsible care for the environment would be to warn against these organizations, and then promote the creation of alternative organizations that genuinely base their concern for the environment on humanity, and so care about businesses, property rights, etc. and offer solutions that cater to the issue holistically.

These would have good results, rather than those such as we have gained from the current movement, which has lead to the deaths of countless human beings both directly and economically, as well as infringing on basic human rights.

General calls for support for environmentalism translate often and normally I believe to the readers and hearers for people to support the activist organizations now leading the movement, which is a support of the culture of death.

 

[RACJ]

Sorry, the Pope’s entreaty is just plain silly. “Climate change” legislation is first and last about governmental curtailment of human freedom. Rob

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Wow… I wholeheartily disagree with the pope.

I disagree also. Who is sending this garbage info to the pope?

 

[JReducation]

Well…yes and no. The Holy Father warns about that very thing:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

But Francis is not speaking of an equality of dignity. He’s speaking about the dignity of origin. All created things, including man, come from the hand of God and therefore, all of creation speaks to us about God. But as we read the Canticle, we realize that each part of creation says something different about God. Man is the only creature that Francis does not mention. Guess why? Because the message is meant for man. Man is the recipient, the interpreter and the transmitter of what God tells us about him through his creatures. Therefore, man has a moral duty to his brother and sister creatures, not for their sake, but for his sake. Thus, what Francis said in 1224 and what Benedict XVI says today are consistent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rlg94086]

But Francis is not speaking of an equality of dignity. He’s speaking about the dignity of origin. All created things, including man, come from the hand of God and therefore, all of creation speaks to us about God. But as we read the Canticle, we realize that each part of creation says something different about God. Man is the only creature that Francis does not mention. Guess why? Because the message is meant for man. Man is the recipient, the interpreter and the transmitter of what God tells us about him through his creatures. Therefore, man has a moral duty to his brother and sister creatures, not for their sake, but for his sake. Thus, what Francis said in 1224 and what Benedict XVI says today are consistent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, brother, I said “yes and no” and I didn’t bold anything that St Francis wrote…I believe I bolded what you wrote.

The “yes” refers to the teachings of St. Francis. The “no” refers to your quote that aligning ourselves with the worldwide movement is not an act of pantheism or liberal politics. It can be, if we are not careful. The Holy Father is consistent with St Francis (of course), but he warns about how we “align ourselves” with the worldwide movement. We need to avoid ecocentrism and biocentrism. All was created by God, but all is not equal. Man is the “steward and administrator.”

I’m sure we are in complete agreement. I just want to make sure that we are clear that we have to maintain the Church’s view and not accept the “worldwide alignment” without proper scrutiny to avoid ecocentrism and biocentrism.

 

[Greg27]

“When we listen to the Holy Father, we must listen with the ears of Augustine and Francis, who understood that the world was created by God for man.”

While I largely agree with the views in your post, I think we need to be careful with this theological view. This view has been used as a rationale (and still is today) to ruthlessly exploit the natural world because it was ‘made for man’ with little regard for the consequences to the rest of the environment. The Bible has a more nuanced view (man is God’s representative and minister on Earth, but not its absolute master); I think the better view is that everything on the Earth is on loan or trust and the position of humanity is that of a trustee and steward ultimately accountable to God for how we treat the creation as both individuals and as a species rather than its absolute owners. To their credit the medievals saw the cosmos as a reflection of God’s glory and urged respect for it but the Churches are rather slow to take up the ethos.

Another problem is many of the roots of our environmental issues have their roots not just in overconsumption and reckless pollution but also overpopulation. In my view the church’s trenchant opposition to artificial methods of contraception and its staunch pro-natal policies which encourage people to have large families has to be revised so people can have smaller families. The world’s population is already going to increase to 9 or so billion and every extra mouth to feed requires more resources, in terms of food, fuel, etc. To deal with climate change and environmental harm population control has to be considered as part of the equation and not ignored. Religious leaders (including those of the Catholic Church) have an important role to play in this because of the weight many of the faithful accord to their views on social, moral and political issues.

 

[JReducation]

Well, brother, I said “yes and no” and I didn’t bold anything that St Francis wrote…I believe I bolded what you wrote.

The “yes” refers to the teachings of St. Francis. The “no” refers to your quote that aligning ourselves with the worldwide movement is not an act of pantheism or liberal politics. It can be, if we are not careful. The Holy Father is consistent with St Francis (of course), but he warns about how we “align ourselves” with the worldwide movement. We need to avoid ecocentrism and biocentrism. All was created by God, but all is not equal. Man is the “steward and administrator.”

I’m sure we are in complete agreement. I just want to make sure that we are clear that we have to maintain the Church’s view and not accept the “worldwide alignment” without proper scrutiny to avoid ecocentrism and biocentrism.

I believe that that’s a given. I work in the world of pro-life, but I do not work in the world of abortion politics. I’m using that as an example. In other words, we have to carefully select what is consistent with faith and morals and filter out what is not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[JReducation]

“When we listen to the Holy Father, we must listen with the ears of Augustine and Francis, who understood that the world was created by God for man.”

While I largely agree with the views in your post, I think we need to be careful with this theological view. This view has been used as a rationale (and still is today) to ruthlessly exploit the natural world because it was ‘made for man’ with little regard for the consequences to the rest of the environment. The Bible has a more nuanced view (man is God’s representative and minister on Earth, but not its absolute master); I think the better view is that everything on the Earth is on loan or trust and the position of humanity is that of a trustee and steward ultimately accountable to God for how we treat the creation as both individuals and as a species rather than its absolute owners. To their credit the medievals saw the cosmos as a reflection of God’s glory and urged respect for it but the Churches are rather slow to take up the ethos.

Another problem is many of the roots of our environmental issues have their roots not just in overconsumption and reckless pollution but also overpopulation. In my view the church’s trenchant opposition to artificial methods of contraception and its staunch pro-natal policies which encourage people to have large families has to be revised so people can have smaller families. The world’s population is already going to increase to 9 or so billion and every extra mouth to feed requires more resources, in terms of food, fuel, etc. To deal with climate change and environmental harm population control has to be considered as part of the equation and not ignored. Religious leaders (including those of the Catholic Church) have an important role to play in this because of the weight many of the faithful accord to their views on social, moral and political issues.

The theological view cannot be abandoned, nor can we nuance the scriptures. We can try to understand the nuance of the scriptures. That is very different.

Man remains the focal point of creation. He is God’s the ultimate expression of God’s love and power, for only he is created in God’s image. Therefore, man is vested with authority over all creation. The issue of exploitation is not a weakness in theology. It is a weakness in man.

This is where Augustine and Francis reach a level of understanding that is very difficult for most of us to understand, much less explain. God created man as an image of himself. Therefore, he vests in man certain attributes. One of those is master of creation. But this mastery must be exercised with love, prudence, respect and responsibility. As we see in the Canticle of the Sun, Francis speaks about creation with the respect and love of a brother to all created things.

It is this sense of brotherhood with the created world that we have lost and has to be recovered. Contracepting will not restore man’s relationship with his brother creatures. In fact, contraception is contrary to man’s nature. When man violates his own nature, he breaks his communion with other created things and beings; because he violates his generative purpose. The reduction of population is a disordered response to the environmental problems that we face. The environmental problems that we face are caused by man’s greed, disregard for the resources of the world and his tendency to take what he wants, rather than what he needs. Christ’s response to this is his call for men to leave everything behind and follow him.

Christ invites man into detachment from material things. Only when man becomes deatched from material things will he find true happiness. At the same time, the virtue of detachment will serve to protect the world in which we live from exploitation due to our desire to posess more than what we need.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tigg]

The thing is, nowadays the global Environmental movement is so fundamentally corrupt, especially the activist organizations that lead the charge – Unless a movement to create a genuinely Catholic Environmentalism were formed, any speeches in general support of it I find quite a cause for concern.

General calls for support for environmentalism translate often and normally I believe to the readers and hearers for people to support the activist organizations now leading the movement, which is a support of the culture of death.

Thank you!

And why are our Churchmen not seeing this danger?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The problem is that the Environmentalist movement has many of its roots in Communism and Socialism, and it is being used to push those idealogies subversively. The environmentalism is the excuse for extending government control over society, in higher taxes, in laws the restrict individual rights over property, in laws that are condemnatory of business in general, and which exert controls over businesses that make them virtually mere extensions of the government rather than run by their owners.

But, there is little awareness shown at the Vatican currently of these problems .

Well, back in the 90’s when the UN was doing a charter on human or women’s rights (i forget exactly), the Vatican teamed up with Iran (the world’s leading exporter of terrorism) and other nefarious countries to oppose abortion wording.
Back during the Cold War the United States was in bed with many right wing dictators who violated their people’s rights in order to oppose communism.
During WW2 the US and the Soviet Union were allies for a period of time.

The world isn’t filled with angels. We have to figure out the best way to advance certain goals. Sometimes that means being in bed with groups that we don’t agree with 100%.

If there were better alternative groups to deal with on the environment then I’m sure the Church would.

 

[miguel]

Another problem is many of the roots of our environmental issues have their roots not just in overconsumption and reckless pollution but also overpopulation. In my view the church’s trenchant opposition to artificial methods of contraception and its staunch pro-natal policies which encourage people to have large families has to be revised so people can have smaller families. The world’s population is already going to increase to 9 or so billion and every extra mouth to feed requires more resources, in terms of food, fuel, etc. To deal with climate change and environmental harm population control has to be considered as part of the equation and not ignored. Religious leaders (including those of the Catholic Church) have an important role to play in this because of the weight many of the faithful accord to their views on social, moral and political issues.

This is from the back flap of Jacqueline Kasun’s book “The War Against Population - The Economics and Ideology of Population Control”…

"The idea that humanity is multiplying at a terrible and accelerating rate is one of the false dogmas of our times. From that notion springs the widely held belief that unless population growth is immediately contained by every governmental and private method imaginable, mankind faces imminent disaster. These ideas form the basis for an enormous international population-control industry that involves billions of dollars of taxes as well as the full time efforts of scores of private philanthropies. Embodied in their agenda is the sort of social planning that actually mandates draconian control over families, churches and other voluntary institutions around the globe.

Point by point, Dr. Kasun shatters the dogmas of the controllers–tenets that simply fall apart under close scrutiny and comparision with a mountain of data that the controllers refuse to confront. This is a fascinating book, a tour de force effort to restore reality to a subject that has become unmoored by ideology."

This is a fairly succinct review of the book.
orwelltoday.com/populationwar.shtml

 

[Fran65]

Regarding Catholic action, 4elise posted the following links on another, similar thread:

catholicclimatecovenant.org/
catholicsandclimatechange.org/

I don’t know what the background or standing of either group is; but they may be worth looking at.

 

[Tigg]

The world isn’t filled with angels. We have to figure out the best way to advance certain goals. Sometimes that means being in bed with groups that we don’t agree with 100%.

If there were better alternative groups to deal with on the environment then I’m sure the Church would.

Which is a greater moral evil - environmental ills (which even some of the scientists are disputing) or the UNFPA which has a specific published agenda to limit the world population through contraception, abortion, and sterilization?

 

[Tigg]

Regarding Catholic action, 4elise posted the following links on another, similar thread:

catholicclimatecovenant.org/
catholicsandclimatechange.org/

I don’t know what the background or standing of either group is; but they may be worth looking at.

Well, I see Caritas Internationalis on the name of the second link. This organization has been exposed as part of the questionable social justice groups funded by the CCHD in the past and has ties with Catholic Charities. It has been connected (along with other agencies,) to several scandals regarding universal abortion funding:

socialjusticesa.blogspot.com/2009/07/usa-catholic-charities-usa-caritas.html

Here’s another snippet:

(emphasis added is mine.)

Caritas was formed in 1897, originally as a loose association of priests and social activists in Freiburg, Germany, performing local works of charity for the community and the faithful. They branched out to Switzerland in 1901.

According to the Caritas web site, beginning in 1948, under the support and guidance of Msgr. Montini, who became Pope Paul VI, the Vatican assigned Caritas Internationalis as its official representative to the United Nations. At the same time, Catholic Charities moved into every diocese across the United States to eventually become the diocesan public policy advocacy arm of the church before government bodies.

Though Archbishop Sheen didn’t name names, he was acting as a prophet when he made the observation he did in 1950. He was, apparently, trying to warn the faithful that charitable works of mercy had joined with big politics and big business. Today Catholic Charities has taken a lead position in forming partnerships or joining in coalitions with other non-profit activist and advocacy groups,** many of whose philosophies and missions were and still are totally opposed to religious values. **

The one uniting factor among all these groups is the goal of expanding their own organizational agendas, assuming major oversight of individual personal lives, and merging the church’s mission of charity with government regulation.

catholicmediacoalition.org/catholic_charities_da_vinci.htm

Once again questioning WHY have the bishops forgotten subsidiarity? And, further, are we now so concerned over climate change that we are prioritizing environmental concerns over the lives of unborn children by linking arms with these morally objectionable groups? I simply do not understand.

 

[Ender]

It is a moral issue because of what it means for people if the theory is correct.

It becomes a moral issue only if we know what we should do and refuse to do it; in this sense every problem involves a moral choice: do what’s right or not. The reason global warming is not a moral issue is that we don’t know what we should do, as you recognize above by saying *"**if *the theory is correct." The validity of a scientific theory is obviously not a moral question.

It is also a moral issue if it is demonstrated to be incorrect and that there has been deception by some scientists and politicians.

The possible misbehavior of individuals involved in an issue does not affect the nature of that issue.

Either way, this issue is not simply a scientific one, which is another reason for Pope Benedict XVI saying what he has.

It is entirely a scientific question until the science is settled. If we do not know that man has measurably harmed the climate (climate only, not including polluted rivers or razed forests) then we cannot possibly know how we should react. I believe the theory of AGW is invalid and will act accordingly. Is that immoral? If it is not then where is the moral issue?

Ender

 

[Fran65]

It is immoral if you consume more than you actually need. As Pope Benedict makes clear, consuming non-renewable resources when you don’t need to and when you could use alternatives is the moral thing to do. Your choices have an impact on both yourself - possibly getting into debt, dissatisfaction with what you have and wanting more; and on others - environmental destruction, ongoing poverty, hunger and the effects of pollution.

If you think that driving a Humvee, throwing items away because you are bored with them or they don’t match the new decor, buying clothes made in sweatshops and lettuce flown four thousand miles doesn’t have consequences regardless of AGW and is morally neutral then you really need to get better informed.

I’m not suggesting that you do any of those things, but that is what your argument means.

 

[Ender]

It is immoral if you consume more than you actually need. As Pope Benedict makes clear, consuming non-renewable resources when you don’t need to and when you could use alternatives is the moral thing to do. Your choices have an impact on both yourself - possibly getting into debt, dissatisfaction with what you have and wanting more; and on others - environmental destruction, ongoing poverty, hunger and the effects of pollution.

If you think that driving a Humvee, throwing items away because you are bored with them or they don’t match the new decor, buying clothes made in sweatshops and lettuce flown four thousand miles doesn’t have consequences regardless of AGW and is morally neutral then you really need to get better informed.

I’m not suggesting that you do any of those things, but that is what your argument means.

This is absolutely not what my argument means; your rebuttal is basically a bait-and-switch response. The topic I was addressing was the scientific theory of AGW; your response was about conservation. It may be common to conflate global warming with saving the rain forests and not living wastefully but they have nothing whatever to do with one another. Either excess CO2 is causing the Earth to warm or it isn’t and the fact that I may commute on a bicycle or own a fleet of Humvee’s won’t change the answer. If it turns out that CO2 is the problem then it may be reasonable to suggest that I downsize my fleet, but if CO2 does not cause warming then there is no incentive for me to change. That, of course, is (for many) the problem.

Your response was typical: I need to change “regardless of AGW”. I suspect that a lot of people just want to force others to live according to their standards and “global warming” is merely a tool to accomplish that goal. If it is proven that CO2 is a problem I’ll change my behavior but I’m not going to change simply because some people are running around claiming that the sky is falling.

Ender

 

[Fran65]

The fleet of humvees is doing more than producing CO2. They are consuming fuel that is non renewable. The US, like many other Western countries is an oil based economy. What do you think is going to happen to those economies when the oil runs short? What do you think happens to environmentally sensitive areas when oil drilling begins?

Of course, why should you care? As long as you can buy what you want when you want all is well because future generations are not your concern and neither are those who live in areas destroyed or being destroyed to feed the greed.

As you point out, this is not (just) about AGW. It is about stewardship of a finite planet. no one is asking you to wear a hair shirt, drive a donkey to market and live in a medieval agrarian society. What you are being asked to do by Pope Benedict amongst others is to think about how you spend your dollars and to consume responsibly and considerately. It’s not that hard!

 

[bookmark]

This is great. The Catholic Church is not a climate-change denying crackpot organization. We have to protect the environment.

Nobody denies climate change. It changes every month and every hundred years and every decade. It’s just that ther is a global warming hoax to collect taxes so the elites can live lavish lifestyles like Al Gore. And so what if it gets warmer, more land for food production. No more starving kids in Africa, unless the UN gets it and keeps it for them selves.

The Pope also said something more important. Speaking Dec 22 2008, Pope Benedict XVI warned that gender theory blurred the distinction between male and female and thus could lead to the “self-destruction” of the human race. Rainforests deserve, yes, our protection, but the human being … does not deserve it less," the pontiff said.

Homosexuality is more destructive than global warming.
nytimes.com/2008/12/22/world/europe/22iht-23pope.18872459.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7796663.stm

 

[bookmark]

The fleet of humvees is doing more than producing CO2. They are consuming fuel that is non renewable. The US, like many other Western countries is an oil based economy. What do you think is going to happen to those economies when the oil runs short? What do you think happens to environmentally sensitive areas when oil drilling begins?

Of course, why should you care? As long as you can buy what you want when you want all is well because future generations are not your concern and neither are those who live in areas destroyed or being destroyed to feed the greed.

As you point out, this is not (just) about AGW. It is about stewardship of a finite planet. no one is asking you to wear a hair shirt, drive a donkey to market and live in a medieval agrarian society. What you are being asked to do by Pope Benedict amongst others is to think about how you spend your dollars and to consume responsibly and considerately. It’s not that hard!

What do you think we are suppose to do with non-renewable energy? Save it and never use it. That’s the whole point of it. You use it up, it’s non-renewabel. It does no one any good sitting in the ground or in a museum. Oil runnin out. take look at the new oil formation in North Dakota. Biggest one yet. Oh no! oil is running out.