Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Don_L]

From: www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf

***What is climate change?
From the bishops’ statement on climate change: ***
“Our enfolding blanket of air, our atmosphere, is both the physical condition for human
community and its most compelling symbol. We all breathe the same air. Guarding the
integrity of the atmosphere—without which complex life could not have evolved on this
planet—seems like common sense. Yet a broad consensus of modern science is that
human activity is [is altering] the earth’s atmospheric characteristics in serious, perhaps
profound ways. For the past century, researchers have been gathering and verifying data that reveal an increase in the global average temperature. …

“To deal with the difficulty of making precise measurements and arriving at definite
conclusions, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) to seek a clear explanation of the causes and possible impacts of this global
climate change.14 Because of the large number of scientists involved in the IPCC and its process of consultation, its reports are considered widely as offering the most
authoritative scientific perspectives on the issue.”

In their Fourth Assessment (www.ipcc.ch), the IPCC has concluded that human activity is in deed altering the climate. This assessment also highlights that the impacts of climate change, more drought, flooding, and other weather extremes will impact poor people and poor countries disproportionately.

This is to argue that the UN, particularly the IPCC, are not primarily political functionaries with an questionable moral agenda, including the spreading of abortion and contraception as well as population control. These are the same people for all intents, that handled the OIL for FOOD fiasco. It wasn’t the poor they were concerned about.

Stating good intentions has always been useful as a ruse to condone evil in the past. Even Satan quoted scripture to Christ, or as C.S. Lewis puts it, Satan uses a lake of clear water to get us to drink his pint of poison.

I personally am very sceptical of anything the political lefts seeks to support its evil agenda, even if they say it is for the poor, I cannot blindly accept it. The latest scientific studies disagree with this unsupported assessment, including attributing in a study, just this weekend, the belief that global warming has allowed the great Inca civilization to exist at all for 400 years. Then again, maybe the Incas killed more poor or something.

The facts are that the poor in America are better off simply because of having the advantage of all the things they received, that are so loathed by the eco-worshippers. (pantheism anyone?)

Pope Paul has reminded us that such smoke from Satan is within the Church’s tabernacle. I personally smell the smoke of earth-worship and political ideology in this entire issue.

Incidentally, the idea that a man (that nasty word again) who eats meat, and is not a vegan is somehow less of a Catholic is absurd and insulting to reason.

 

[Ender]

is that a royal we …

No, it was we as in you and I.

I do not consider that someone who does not believe climate change is real - or if they believe it is real, but that there is no man made source - and this person does not act, there is nothing morally wrong in their inaction.

If you believe this then what is the purpose of quoting the position of the USCCB? The inference made in citing the bishops is that it is immoral to oppose their position; it is their moral authority that is significant when they speak, not their scientific expertise. However you just said that I am morally free to reject the bishops position, which can only be true if their position is prudential and not moral which reinforces the point that the issue itself is prudential and not moral.

So given the above, can you see that I am not ‘implying’ anything about morality for those who do not come to the same conclusion?

Then the position taken by the bishops on this issue must be morally irrelevant and since we know that it is scientifically irrelevant there is no purpose whatever in citing it.

HOWEVER, if I, (dare I say we?) on the basis of what I have read and believe - climate change is real and there are man made factors then ***I am bound to take actions that reflect that belief. ***

Sunday mass is a moral obligation but when, where, and how we get there are not moral questions. Caring for the environment and one another are moral obligations but how we go about doing that does not involve moral choices but prudential ones. If you believe you best satisfy your Sunday obligation by driving three hours in order to attend the 8:00 mass at a monastery, then you are obliged to do so, just as you are bound to act on your belief that man can affect the climate. If I, however, believe that I best meet my Sunday obligation by walking around the corner to St. Fred’s for Saturday vigil - or refuse to believe that man can affect the climate - then it should be obvious that our actions are morally identical. The moral issue is our obligation to care for the environment; the prudential option is how we think we can best accomplish that goal. Claiming that we are morally obliged to act on climate change is no different than claiming we are morally obliged to attend the 8:00 mass.

Ender

 

[4elise]

This is to argue that the UN, particularly the IPCC, are not primarily political functionaries with an questionable moral agenda, including the spreading of abortion and contraception as well as population control. These are the same people for all intents, that handled the OIL for FOOD fiasco. It wasn’t the poor they were concerned about.

Stating good intentions has always been useful as a ruse to condone evil in the past. Even Satan quoted scripture to Christ, or as C.S. Lewis puts it, Satan uses a lake of clear water to get us to drink his pint of poison.

I personally am very sceptical of anything the political lefts seeks to support its evil agenda, even if they say it is for the poor, I cannot blindly accept it. The latest scientific studies disagree with this unsupported assessment, including attributing in a study, just this weekend, the belief that global warming has allowed the great Inca civilization to exist at all for 400 years. Then again, maybe the Incas killed more poor or something.

The facts are that the poor in America are better off simply because of having the advantage of all the things they received, that are so loathed by the eco-worshippers. (pantheism anyone?)

Pope Paul has reminded us that such smoke from Satan is within the Church’s tabernacle. I personally smell the smoke of earth-worship and political ideology in this entire issue.

Incidentally, the idea that a man (that nasty word again) who eats meat, and is not a vegan is somehow less of a Catholic is absurd and insulting to reason.

All this being said - it may be your position that there is some kind of sinister political agenda among the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for their position. I humbly disagree. I hear a call to keep the poor at the hear to the discussion.

*And FYI for the ‘man’ issue - I only took exception (many threads back) because there was an implication that a man used reason and that a woman used emotionalism to come to a conclusion. * And I do not believe that I have said or implied ANYTHING that could be construed to say that “a man who eats meat, and is not a vegan is somehow less of a Catholic” — I find this absurd and insulting —

The idea that one who agrees with the position of the IPCC is therefore listening to Satan - really? You don’t find this absurd?

I have tried to have a respectful dialogue and hope we can continue to do so.

 

[Don_L]

All this being said - it may be your position that there is some kind of sinister political agenda among the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for their position. I humbly disagree. I hear a call to keep the poor at the hear to the discussion.

*And FYI for the ‘man’ issue - I only took exception (many threads back) because there was an implication that a man used reason and that a woman used emotionalism to come to a conclusion. * And I do not believe that I have said or implied ANYTHING that could be construed to say that “a man who eats meat, and is not a vegan is somehow less of a Catholic” — I find this absurd and insulting —

The idea that one who agrees with the position of the IPCC is therefore listening to Satan - really? You don’t find this absurd?

I have tried to have a respectful dialogue and hope we can continue to do so.

I don’t recall ever using the word woman. I clearly refered to “man” as a species (God’s creation) and not in terms of gender. Your correcting that well-understood objective term signaled a feminist sensititity.

You are equating the IPCC with moral correctness when you infer helping the poor is their goal (and yours) I just prefer to see two things:

1. Evidence from an agency that has proven itself to be less than moral in the past and also
2. We have seen this Church be led into scandalous disasters in recent history (liberation theology) and the Jesuits “preferential option for the poor” leading to the booing of Pope John Paul II in Nicaugua by Catholic Marxists, and their priests carrying UZIs to solve the poverty problem for the poor. JPII stopped that Marxist nonsense in Medellin after becoming pope.

Pope Paul has warned us of the smoke of Satan within the Church

Cardinal Ratzinger has addressed the idea of national bishop’s councils as not being a part of the hierarchy for a reason.

The Catholic Bishops have admitted “accidentally” funneling money meant for the poor to fund the leftist politica group ACORN who was instrumental in electing an infanticide president.

More than 200 US bishops never spoke out publically against honoring this pro-infanticide president at a Catholic University. Why not?

Do I accept their judgment on such political items that are also dear to the political hearts of the left? I would be irresponsible before God, not to ask harder questions and get better answers first.

If we must use the Church to further a cause, (with activist groups and all) somewhere in there, we ought to be hearing concerns about the salvation of souls, which is the Church’s mission, lest we forget - not the salvation of meat bearing animals.

 

[TEPO]

You might be interested in visiting the web site for the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change to read what they suggest for actions/QU

I believe that Catholic Social Teaching along with Catholic catechism takes precidence over the IPCC because of one main reason; that the fabric of catholic social morals cannot and should never be altered by any modern popular beliefs not directly authorized by GOD himself. As it were before the IPCC, all catholic teaching was in continuity. This leads me to believe that the very fabric of our faith is seeking to become altared by individuals of insidious views.

 

[TEPO]

By the way, Catholic social teaching and catechism teach that individuals and groups care for Gods creation, not that govornments of nations unite by scientific discovery and sanction all of humanity until the end of time.

 

[TEPO]

Period. End of story.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We are not obliged by the Church to believe in global warming or that, if it exists, it is caused by manmade CO2. Consequently, we are not obliged to believe in anything that follows from those assumptions.

Nor are we obliged, therefore, to believe that global warming will make this place droughty or that place rainy, since those conclusions rest on even more rarified conjectures piled atop other conjectures.

Nor, therefore, are we obliged to believe that any of the “remedies” being pushed will have any beneficial effect on anyone, let alone the poor.

Consequently, we are not obliged to believe that the poor will benefit from any of the things the global warming advocates are pushing, and have no moral obligation to support them.

 

[4elise]

I don’t recall ever using the word woman. I clearly refered to “man” as a species (God’s creation) and not in terms of gender. Your correcting that well-understood objective term signaled a feminist sensititity.

You are equating the IPCC with moral correctness when you infer helping the poor is their goal (and yours) I just prefer to see two things:

1. Evidence from an agency that has proven itself to be less than moral in the past and also
2. We have seen this Church be led into scandalous disasters in recent history (liberation theology) and the Jesuits “preferential option for the poor” leading to the booing of Pope John Paul II in Nicaugua by Catholic Marxists, and their priests carrying UZIs to solve the poverty problem for the poor. JPII stopped that Marxist nonsense in Medellin after becoming pope.

Pope Paul has warned us of the smoke of Satan within the Church

Cardinal Ratzinger has addressed the idea of national bishop’s councils as not being a part of the hierarchy for a reason.

The Catholic Bishops have admitted “accidentally” funneling money meant for the poor to fund the leftist politica group ACORN who was instrumental in electing an infanticide president.

More than 200 US bishops never spoke out publically against honoring this pro-infanticide president at a Catholic University. Why not?

Do I accept their judgment on such political items that are also dear to the political hearts of the left? I would be irresponsible before God, not to ask harder questions and get better answers first.

If we must use the Church to further a cause, (with activist groups and all) somewhere in there, we ought to be hearing concerns about the salvation of souls, which is the Church’s mission, lest we forget - not the salvation of meat bearing animals.

Sometimes in communicating on these threads I feel like if we could just sit face to face it would be so much easier, don’t you? Perhaps we should both reply to what is written rather than what we think is inferred.

My answer was in RESPONSE to your comments that ‘inferred’ that agreeing with the findings if the IPCC was implicitly satanic.

AND I don’t believe the IPCC has any position on their recommendations as it relates to the poor - THIS is where I hear the voice of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and others *"One Catholic priest impatient for change is Seán McDonagh, a Columban missionary and author of books on ecology and religion. “The Catholic church’s social teaching on human rights and justice has been good, but there has been little concern about the impact on the planet. The church has been caught up on its emphasis on development and on resisting population control, but if we are pro-life we should be banging the drum now about climate change.” * guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/27/catholicism.religion Article titlerotect God’s creation: Vatican issues new green message for world’s Catholics

I do not think a position opposed to this is evil. I really don’t know how else to state this, I have said over and over and over again that many who do not believe climate change is real or if it is real, there are no man made factors — these people like yourself are good people who are following where their minds lead them, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore - their actions / or lack of actions are an appropriate response.

I, me, myself, I, me, myself, AGREE with the information on the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change, I, me, myself, AGREE with what the UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS have said about the need to keep the poor at the heart of the discussion.

You can dismiss this on any basis you chose, you don’t respect 200 of the bishops, you don’t think they should be talking about this issue, you don’t respect the USCCB because of the ACORN issue, I really don’t care.

I do not dismiss this and in fact really value this contribution.
I did not intend this thread to be a discussion on the science but on the faith response - therefore - since you do not believe it - you are already set, go in peace!

As for working for salvation of souls my brother my choice to ‘go vegan’ is one that has PEOPLE at the heart, not as you ‘imply’ the ‘meat’ bearing animals.

 

[4elise]

omiusajpic.org/2007/09/25/vatican-statement-on-climate/

And the Vatican takes steps…

Vatican Statement on Climate Change

September 25th, 2007

The Vatican recently announced that it was taking steps to go ‘climate neutral’. This action is bolstered by the statement delivered on September 24 at the UN in New York by the Vatican’s “deputy foreign minister,” the Undersecretary for Relations with States Msgr. Pietro Parolin.

Calling on the world’s nations to “overcome self-interest through collective action,” the Vatican stresses the need for “adoption of a coordinated, effective and prompt international political strategy capable of responding to such a complex question” as global warming. The statement further highlighted the need for funds for mitigation and adaptation in poor countries.

Audio Clip of the presentation
Full Text of the Statement of Msgr. Pietro Parolin:

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express some considerations of the Holy See in light of what we have heard today from the preceding distinguished speakers.

Climate change is a serious concern and an inescapable responsibility for scientists and other experts, political and governmental leaders, local administrators and international organizations, as well as every sector of human society and each human person. My delegation wishes to stress the underlying moral imperative that all, without exception, have a grave responsibility to protect …

 

[4elise]

We are not obliged by the Church to believe in global warming or that, if it exists, it is caused by manmade CO2. Consequently, we are not obliged to believe in anything that follows from those assumptions.

Nor are we obliged, therefore, to believe that global warming will make this place droughty or that place rainy, since those conclusions rest on even more rarified conjectures piled atop other conjectures.

Nor, therefore, are we obliged to believe that any of the “remedies” being pushed will have any beneficial effect on anyone, let alone the poor.

Consequently, we are not obliged to believe that the poor will benefit from any of the things the global warming advocates are pushing, and have no moral obligation to support them.

You are right. No argument from me. You are not obliged.

 

[walker_p]

How?

By destroying the economy for something that doesn’t exist? By continuing to give more power to the government and persecuting Christians?

Tell me how that will help the poor.

His policies are about as far from Christian as is possible to be. The Church has soundly condemned socialism. And since socialism has already earned a bad name, “Climate change” is its new disguise.

There was a thread here on the EPA suppressing a report that debunked global warming. Hope I can find the link.

The left’s policies do the opposite of what they say they want them to do, yet they keep doing the same thing, more repressively with each iteration.

 

[walker_p]

There aren’t any.

This is what makes the bishops’ involvement in this issue so disturbing although quite frankly I suspect this is much more the work of some committee in the USCCB pushing a personal agenda than it is a thoughtful response of the bishops. In any event - and this is an entirely separate point - nothing that emanates from the USCCB has any binding authority. It is nonetheless quite disappointing to see their involvement as it makes it seem as if there is in fact some question of morality involved in the position one takes on a scientific argument.
The “Catholic community” should do nothing at all as this is not a Catholic issue. Individual Catholics may do whatever they choose.
Well, since there isn’t a moral question here it really doesn’t matter what the CCCC says since it doesn’t even matter what the USCCB says (on this topic at least).

Ender

:thumbsup:

 

[walker_p]

It is the HOW WE RESPOND that is the moral issue.

Do our actions keep the poor and most vulnerable at the heart, as the Holy Father has insisted must be our measure, or are we only worried about preserving our own way of life to their determent?

Nice non sequitur. Man-made global warming is a myth and a lie. As such it has no bearing on keeping the poor and most vulnerable at heart. If you want to do so, then do so. But leave the nonsense of man-made global warming out of it. Notice the use of masculine pronouns is not gender exclusive. I notice you like to use the term “deniers” for people who reject the false science of man-made global warming. Remember the knife cuts both ways.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Now that we’ve established that man-made climate change is a fable (in the sense that Fr. Wade Menezes means the word fable), we can also realize it is simply another dreary grab for power by Caesar.

Animals have no rights. ‘The planet’ has no rights.

Only human beings have rights, granted by God. All else is relativistic and pagan thinking.

 

[Ender]

… we are not obliged to believe that the poor will benefit from any of the things the global warming advocates are pushing, and have no moral obligation to support them.

The truth of this statement should be so obvious it ought to end the conversation, but there is little prospect of that happening. There is too much at stake in the global warming dispute for its advocates to abandon any argument, no matter how invalid, that might help further their aims.

If there is any good that can come out of the argument that “climate change” is a moral issue it might be to clarify the difference between moral issues and prudential ones. It seems that almost every political issue is deemed to be a moral contest between those who care and those who don’t. In fact very few issues involve moral choices. A dispute over the best means to resolve a problem is not a moral concern and it is the dispute over the means that, as with global warming, characterizes most issues.

Abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are moral issues; global warming, immigration, and universal health care are not and for exactly the same reason: we are not obliged to believe that the poor will benefit from any of the things the _______ advocates are pushing and have no moral obligation to support them.

Ender

 

[Don_L]

The truth of this statement should be so obvious it ought to end the conversation, but there is little prospect of that happening. There is too much at stake in the global warming dispute for its advocates to abandon any argument, no matter how invalid, that might help further their aims.

If there is any good that can come out of the argument that “climate change” is a moral issue it might be to clarify the difference between moral issues and prudential ones. It seems that almost every political issue is deemed to be a moral contest between those who care and those who don’t. In fact very few issues involve moral choices. A dispute over the best means to resolve a problem is not a moral concern and it is the dispute over the means that, as with global warming, characterizes most issues.

Abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are moral issues; global warming, immigration, and universal health care are not and for exactly the same reason: we are not obliged to believe that the poor will benefit from any of the things the _______ advocates are pushing and have no moral obligation to support them.

Ender

You’re so right about other issues being more important to Catholics, particularly with what is happening on the political front with potential euthanasia in the healthcare bill.

As I ofter argued against active professed atheists, “If God doesn’t exist, then why would such an intellegent person as yourself, spend all your time debating what you consider to be non-existent?”

I feel the same about this Climate Change hoax and so l will seek more urgent areas of concern.

 

[4elise]

I acknowledge that there are many here who disagree with the USCCB taking the findings of the ICPP to speak out for the poor.

HOWEVER - they have - as a partner with the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change.

Disagreeing with the findings if ICPP and/or the USCCB choice to accept their findings as a starting point is of course the choice of anyone, and I AGREE, if one does, they are not compelled to make any changes.

If however one does accept this, we are called to make changes.

From: newsweek.com/id/132523

Benedict is not the first pope to address the issue of environmental degradation. His predecessor, Pope John Paul II, once described environmental concerns as a “moral issue” and noted as far back as 1990 that people have “a grave responsibility to preserve [the earth’s] order for the well-being of future generations.” However, the new pontiff has made being green a central part of his teachings and policy-making. Just months after being elected pope, Benedict stated in his first homily as pontiff that “the earth’s treasures have been made to serve the powers of exploitation and destruction” and called on Catholics to be better stewards of God’s creation. Last spring at a Vatican conference devoted to climate change, Benedict announced that global citizens have to “focus on the needs of sustainable development.” That message was taken a step further when the church last month announced seven new sins that now require repentance. Number four on the list was “polluting the environment.” Among the others were “causing social injustice” and “becoming obscenely wealthy,” which are also both linked to taking care of the earth, says a Vatican spokesman.

You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord’s name in vain or coveting your neighbor’s wife, but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos," said [Bishop Gianfranco] Girotti, who is responsible for the body that oversees confessions.

The seven social sins are:

1. “Bioethical” violations such as birth control
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty

 

[TEPO]

As you asked, I will answer. How to put catholic faith into action on “climate change” is a simple question with a simple answer. Ready??? O.K. here is the correct answer, the only correct answer… it is ----- – - the formula given to us directly by GOD Himself through the Blessed Virgin Mother. You guessed it, FATIMA…
“to save mankind from self-destruction”, “Several entire nations will be annihilated”, this cn all be stopped!!! Its not too late!

 

[TEPO]

Let us all begin the First Saturday Pledge beginning August, 1, 2009… Lets get involved in “climate change”, and save America and the world…