U
Usagi
Guest
Artificial contraception was already a sin when Pope Paul put out Humanae Vitae. Sometimes things need to be emphasized in an era that overlooks or rebels against them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Pope considering adding ‘sin against ecology’ to Church’s catechism"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Ammi
Guest
Humanae Vitae is considered the formal, binding condemnation of contraception.
As several posters have demonstrated, there has been many formal documents addressing sin against harming the environment.
As several posters have demonstrated, there has been many formal documents addressing sin against harming the environment.
Very true.Artificial contraception was already a sin when Pope Paul put out Humanae Vitae.
And an encyclical may be the answer.
Humanae Vitae was not a change to the catechism.
T
twf
Guest
We have an encyclical. Laudato Si. This revision to the Catechism would likely reference it.
U
Usagi
Guest
The CCC did not exist until the 1990s. Presumably they did not update the Catechism of the Council of Trent, but certainly new Catholic teaching tools written after that time cited HV and emphasized its teaching. The CCC, as we have seen before, is open to revision. That doesn’t mean changing the teaching, obviously, but emphasizing certain things or expressing them in new language is something that has already been done.
People seem to fear that the Pope is going to enshrine specific policies about air travel or plastic or whatever, but the very fact that we’re talking about the Catechism makes that unlikely. The Catechism addresses moral points and may take a position on specific questions that have come up (might the continued existence of Judaism have a divine purpose? do we hate gay people?), but it is not the place to make policy recommendations other than a blanket “nations have a right and a duty to address this.”
People seem to fear that the Pope is going to enshrine specific policies about air travel or plastic or whatever, but the very fact that we’re talking about the Catechism makes that unlikely. The Catechism addresses moral points and may take a position on specific questions that have come up (might the continued existence of Judaism have a divine purpose? do we hate gay people?), but it is not the place to make policy recommendations other than a blanket “nations have a right and a duty to address this.”
blackforest
Well-known member
That would indeed be the change from previous doctrine on environmental stewardship. I don’t think the intent is to force Catholics to the confessional every time they throw away, let alone purchase, a water bottle.So some of us are curious why does Francis feel the need to add the sin label?
It can help on a macro level, however. For example, it could serve as a guideline for Catholics who work in an environmentally irresponsible industry to either reassess their employment or serve as a voice for our faith and make changes from within the system. Also, as long as conscience protection laws are in place, a well-articulated change like this could enable a Catholic to refuse to participate in, say, dumping pollutants into water ways.
A
Ammi
Guest
For myself, I think it’s more of seeing strange behavior and priorities.
It’s the fact that he wants to define and expand something which no one is asking for definitions and clarity over, while he does not define and clarify things many people do ask for.
It’s the fact that he wants to define and expand something which no one is asking for definitions and clarity over, while he does not define and clarify things many people do ask for.
A
Ammi
Guest
Ok, so are you suggesting that Catholics are in a bind over their consciences, and feel that the present Catechism section on stewardship is lacking conviction for them to rely on?
blackforest
Well-known member
I’m suggesting that it might provide more “teeth” to the principle for Catholics needing protection for their convictions.
Catholics routinely find themselves in a conscience-related bind over a wide array of issues. If you doubt that, spend some time sifting through CAF threads.
Catholics routinely find themselves in a conscience-related bind over a wide array of issues. If you doubt that, spend some time sifting through CAF threads.
A
Ammi
Guest
I dont doubt that. I agree.
I just find it strange that he chooses ecology to add conviction to, yet when Catholics ask for conviction about other things, he is passive about.
I just find it strange that he chooses ecology to add conviction to, yet when Catholics ask for conviction about other things, he is passive about.
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
God gave us this earth. It is up to us to take care of that gift.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Why does the prospect of responsible stewardship to the earth spawn so much moral outrage?
Not to worry, folks. I promise that sorting your recycling, planting a tree, and shopping with reusable bags won’t turn you into Che Guevara. Or even Joe Biden.
So, I can’t speak for anyone else but for me, I am all for being good stewards of the Earth. We should be good stewards of all the gifts God gives to us. I have no problem with recycling, using reusasble bags, rules on polution and etc. I do my best to do all of these things and I hate seeing polution lying around, seriously.God gave us this earth. It is up to us to take care of that gift.
Where all this ecology discussion is bothering me is the connection of the Vatican with the United Nations 2030 Sustainable goals. Yes a lot of the goals are very good but some very much contradict Church teaching, such as abortion, contraception, religious indifferentism and same sex marriage. These are just the few I found looking around the U.N. website:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
Many of their articles are very disturbing.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/03/08/190308d.html
IMHO there is a train coming towards us at the end of this ecology tunnel and it isn’t going to be pretty when it hits.
Last edited:
J
JanR
Guest
I tend to agree with you. Our Catechism covers our obligation to be responsible stewards of our earth. Just because humans are said to have dominion over the earth and all of its creatures doesn’t give any of us a license to do whatever we please with and to nature and its ecological systems.
That’s why I’ve always said that when we find it necessary to intervene in nature, we must be very careful to do it thoughtfully and intelligently, and walk that careful line between intervention and interference. We often do more harm than good, usually because we don’t really know what we’re doing or the correct way to do it.
Case in point – the wildfires that keep destroying huge parts of California every year. It’s due to poor forest management and overcrowding of wilderness areas – i.e. too many people sardined into places too small to accommodate such large populations, and houses built too close together with no clearance around them. People prefer these places because they are surrounded by huge, lovely trees that come right up to the edges of their properties, but just one wayward spark from any source brings on a conflagration, with great loss of life. The Camp Fire in Paradise was one tragic example. That narrow main road running through the community got clogged up quickly and blocked off residents’ escape route.
If developers would recognize the dangers of crowding so many homes so close together in wilderness areas, and if homeowners would keep brush cleared out from around their homes for at least a 30-foot radius, AND, if so-called environmentalists would just allow the Forest Service to do its job removing dead trees and other instant tinder instead of suing them every time they try to do the wise thing, there would be a lot fewer of these devastating fires each year.
That’s just one example of poor stewardship on everybody’s part.
That’s why I’ve always said that when we find it necessary to intervene in nature, we must be very careful to do it thoughtfully and intelligently, and walk that careful line between intervention and interference. We often do more harm than good, usually because we don’t really know what we’re doing or the correct way to do it.
Case in point – the wildfires that keep destroying huge parts of California every year. It’s due to poor forest management and overcrowding of wilderness areas – i.e. too many people sardined into places too small to accommodate such large populations, and houses built too close together with no clearance around them. People prefer these places because they are surrounded by huge, lovely trees that come right up to the edges of their properties, but just one wayward spark from any source brings on a conflagration, with great loss of life. The Camp Fire in Paradise was one tragic example. That narrow main road running through the community got clogged up quickly and blocked off residents’ escape route.
If developers would recognize the dangers of crowding so many homes so close together in wilderness areas, and if homeowners would keep brush cleared out from around their homes for at least a 30-foot radius, AND, if so-called environmentalists would just allow the Forest Service to do its job removing dead trees and other instant tinder instead of suing them every time they try to do the wise thing, there would be a lot fewer of these devastating fires each year.
That’s just one example of poor stewardship on everybody’s part.
blackforest
Well-known member
Would you mind clarifying what this connection is? Does the connection lie in the Vatican agreeing on certain points? Or is the Vatican collaborating with the UN to accept the whole agenda?Where all this ecology discussion is bothering me is the connection of the Vatican with the United Nations 2030 Sustainable goals.
This is an excellent point. The article itself shows that Pope Francis is speaking in a broader context of “market idolatry.” We live in a culture of black-and-white thinking that renders any criticism of capitalism as “communism” or “socialism.” I’m glad we have a free market but think we’re being disingenuous if we ignore its ugly side, the resulting environmental degradation being part of it.The Pope , Holy Father Pope Francis said a lot more and put that sensationalist headline in perspective.
It is a pity that is the only focus
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
That you will have to figure out because I have not read anything about just accepting certain points. The link I added from the Vatican praises the 2030 sustainable goals, nothing about certain points only.Would you mind clarifying what this connection is? Does the connection lie in the Vatican agreeing on certain points? Or is the Vatican collaborating with the UN to accept the whole agenda?
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I set my AC at 80 in the summer and my heater at 60 in the winter.“For your penance: No barbecuing this summer, replace your SUV with a scooter; no drinking straws for a year; set your AC to 80 degrees in the summer, and your heater to 65 degrees in the winter; and join your local eco support group”
Not for penance. I’m just a cheapskate.
blackforest
Well-known member
OK, I read through them and didn’t find this. This is the only part that could prove objectionable for Catholics.Many of their articles are very disturbing.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/
I would hope that the Vatican would clarify how these goals are being met. “Family planning” can be code for abortion. On the other hand, there’s NFP.
- The need for family planning is slowly being met for more women, but demand is increasing at a rapid pace.
Otherwise, I can’t find anything as dire as you’re describing. I’m not trying to nitpick. I’m genuinely wondering . . . what am I missing? Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals – United Nations Sustainable Development
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
I’m not sure what or how you are missing this stuff, unless you are not following out into the articles and targets. Just click around the website. Here’s just one article regarding abortion goal #3:
Increased efforts are needed, especially in developing regions, to ensure access to contraception and safe abortion,” says Bela Ganatra
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevel...tions-occur-each-year-un-health-agency-warns/
We’re way past recycling and grocery bags.
Increased efforts are needed, especially in developing regions, to ensure access to contraception and safe abortion,” says Bela Ganatra
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevel...tions-occur-each-year-un-health-agency-warns/
We’re way past recycling and grocery bags.
Last edited:
C
CaptFun
Guest
Shouldn’t that be eco-illogical sins?
Like (I don’t know, say …) making nature a “God or goddess”.
Or considering insufficient recycling an evil on a par with partial birth abortion?
Maybe Pope Francis has something else in mind.
How bad IS the weather in Rome these days?
Is “overpopulation” part of this? If so, the Catechism may be about to get a whole lot more interesting… if not more heavenly directed.
Like (I don’t know, say …) making nature a “God or goddess”.
Or considering insufficient recycling an evil on a par with partial birth abortion?
Maybe Pope Francis has something else in mind.
How bad IS the weather in Rome these days?
Is “overpopulation” part of this? If so, the Catechism may be about to get a whole lot more interesting… if not more heavenly directed.
A
Ammi
Guest
Do you think helping us know what is on his mind is something he is good at?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.