Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Contarini]

This places man instantly above creation of earth. The earth is competative. Grass competes with trees for sunlight, foxes compete with wolves for prey, and people compete with people for a million reasons. But our souls are not from earth… They come straight from God through the Holy spirit and land directly in our earthly bodies.

I don’t think that this radical dualism is the best way to interpret the Bible or the Christian tradition. It is certainly present in the Christian tradition through the influence of Neo-Platonism. But it points us away from basic Biblical doctrines such as the bodily resurrection. At most, body-soul dualism is true only when heavily modified and tempered.

and God is not from the earth, he made it. Still even though he made earth, he also made satan

Actually that is not the traditional Christian view. The traditional view is that God made a good angel named Lucifer, who *became *Satan through an act of free will. Quite different.

Competition creates greed. We are forced to compete and fall into sin through greed because of the devil. We cannot escape it.

I do not think that this is orthodox Catholicism. I suggest that you check with a holy and learned priest. What you are saying is approached by Augustine, admittedly, but is really more like the teaching of Luther and Calvin. (Augustine had to allow for at least the theoretical possibility of a sinless Christian because he was compelled by the Christian tradition against the bent of his own theological intuitions. Luther and Calvin broke in part with the tradition and thus were able to give free rein to those dark yet compelling intuitions.)

Furthermore, you are implying that this competition, which creates sin, is intrinsic to earthly existence. That goes way beyond Augustine or even the Reformers. I don’t see how you can escape the charge of Gnosticism. This is one of the worst heresies to afflict the Church and was soundly refuted in the second century. Earthly existence is not intrinsically bad. It does not *compel *us to sin.

We can only limit it but never escape it. If you think you can create a system without greed, then you must think you are greater than God.

I don’t think I can create a system without greed, although if you think that God created a system with greed, then again, I seriously question your orthodoxy. (Don’t take my word for it–as I said, check with a Catholic priest whose learning and piety you trust.)

As Christians we are supposed to channel competition and greed into ways that are positive.

OK–that really *is *“ends justify the means”! You are saying that instead of trying not to sin, we should use sin positively. Sorry, but that isn’t what we are called to do at all. Quite the opposite.

We have to beware of people getting greedy with placing emphasis on the earth.

You haven’t shown how this is “greedy.” You are the one saying greed is good, and you try to justify it by the thoroughly unconvincing argument that greed is necessary, and the completely unjustified assumption that capitalist “greed” is better than environmentalist “greed” (even if you could prove that both are forms of greed).

Edwin

 

[TEPO]

tepo

 

[TEPO]

Sure. And if more government intervention in the economy will result in fewer abortions, that should be weighed out too.

yes.

You’re the one saying that if doing something that appears to be good and just (protecting the environment) results in people being poorer, which results in them having more abortions, then we shouldn’t do that good and just thing. You are the one saying that if free enterprise reduces the number of abortions, that’s a point in its favor. You aren’t saying that *anything *that will reduce the number of abortions is OK, which is why I haven’t accused you of saying that the ends justify the means.

Try not supporting abortionists… Let the world die unless they surrender… We now have the upper hand.

But so far I can’t see that you have pointed out any. They’ve been a lot of red herrings from start to finish, frankly.

Red herrings? .:hypno:

Actually this is exactly what I see you doing, with your argument that we should ignore environmental issues because they might distract us from fighting abortion…

I already told you I support the environment. Just not the U.N. way.

True goods are not in essential competition with each other. True, no one can do everything at once. But you’re the one setting up a competition between abortion and the environment which simply doesn’t need to exist. …

I havent “set up” anything.

 

[TEPO]

OK–that really *is *“ends justify the means”! You are saying that instead of trying not to sin, we should use sin positively. Sorry, but that isn’t what we are called to do at all. Quite the opposite.

Sure it is. Ever heard of sports? What about competing with someone to help an old woman accross the street? Is praying for 4 hours every morning greedy, when your wife wants a favor?

You haven’t shown how this is “greedy.” You are the one saying greed is good, and you try to justify it by the thoroughly unconvincing argument that greed is necessary, and the completely unjustified assumption that capitalist “greed” is better than environmentalist “greed” (even if you could prove that both are forms of greed)…

I’m not sure what greed is good or bad. But I do say, I dont think all competition and greed are necessarily bad. Greed is such a general term…

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Sure it is. Ever heard of sports? What about competing with someone to help an old woman accross the street? Is praying for 4 hours every morning greedy, when your wife wants a favor?

I’m not sure what greed is good or bad. But I do say, I dont think all competition and greed are necessarily bad. Greed is such a general term…

Hey, folks!

Very interesting conversation you’re having. May I say something?

Greed is when you want more than you really need. Our Father in Heaven wants to give good gifts to His children. And Jesus said WHATEVER we should ask him in his name he would do it.

Perhaps we should pray for a solution to these issues. It is, after all, up to us believers to try and establish the kingdom. (church militant and all that) There should be no conflict between supporting environmental cleanup and pro life issues. These conflicts are created by the world’s systems. And they only serve to keep us divided.

Peace.

You may now resume with your regular discussion.

 

[TEPO]

Thanks Bill…

I was just re-reading my last post where I said “Try not supporting abortionists… Let the world die unless they surrender… We now have the upper hand.”

Does anyone really think the Libs would actually let the world die if we promised not to vote for them unless they ended abortion? Of course not… They would have to stop abortion, wouldnt they???

 

[4elise]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090826_en.html

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday, 26 August 2009

I offer a warm welcome to all the English-speaking visitors present at today’s Audience, including the many altar servers, school pupils and choristers.

The summer holidays have given us all the opportunity to thank God for the precious gift of creation. Taking up this theme, I wish to reflect today upon the relationship between the Creator and ourselves as guardians of his creation.** In so doing I also wish to offer my support to leaders of governments and international agencies who soon will meet at the United Nations to discuss the urgent issue of climate change.
**
The Earth is indeed a precious gift of the Creator who, in designing its intrinsic order, has given us guidelines that assist us as stewards of his creation. Precisely from within this framework, the Church considers that matters concerning the environment and its protection are intimately linked with integral human development. In my recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, I referred to such questions recalling the “pressing moral need for renewed solidarity” (no. 49) not only between countries but also between individuals, since the natural environment is given by God to everyone, and so our use of it entails a personal responsibility towards humanity as a whole, particularly towards the poor and towards future generations (cf. no. 48).

I BELIEVE we are being invited to make individual choices that reflect our personal responsibility towards humanity… in light of this - there are some good personal suggestions here: catholicclimatecovenant.org/

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

“Climate Change” is nothing but pure junk science designed to fill the wallets of unscrupulous politicians and to distract people from truly vital issues.

The fact that the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic “Bureaucrats”) is voicing its outrage over this is more than enough evidence for me to put this issue in the waste bin.

Here’s a thought … how about putting Catholic faith into action against:

-Abortion (only one of many issues according to the USCCB)
-Homosexual “marriage”
-Our current President’s active support of infanticide (among countless other immoral positions)
-Rampant immorality
-Heresy being preached from many a Catholic pulpit
-Our Lord being the victim of endless blasphemies and caricatures

… have any of these issues made into the radar of the USCCB other than when it wants to relativise their importance?

Please. When the fort is being stormed don’t bother me about the leaky faucet in the mess hall.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua Smith

 

[Contarini]

Try not supporting abortionists… Let the world die unless they surrender… We now have the upper hand.

That really is “the ends justify the means.” Isn’t it? You are saying that we should do something unbelievably wicked in order to produce a good result. That we should hold all human life–including the lives of the unborn, obviously–hostage in order to coerce our opponents.

I havent “set up” anything.

Yes, you have. You have repeatedly suggested that supporting environmentalism will somehow harm the faith of Catholics and/or distract from the fight against abortion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sure it is. Ever heard of sports? What about competing with someone to help an old woman accross the street?

I was responding to this statement of yours:

Competition creates greed. We are forced to compete and fall into sin through greed because of the devil. We cannot escape it. We can only limit it but never escape it.

You identified competition with greed and with sin, and argued that we are forced to sin. That is heresy. That is what I’m disagreeing with. I do not think that all competition is bad, although I don’t know why I would compete with someone to help an old woman across the street. If someone else was already doing it, I would go about my business, or find an old lady who didn’t have anyone to help her. However, the point is that you explicitly said that we are “forced” to engage in sinful, “greedy” competition. You now seem to be backing off from this.

Is praying for 4 hours every morning greedy, when your wife wants a favor?

Praying for long hours instead of doing something to help my wife would indeed be wrong. I suppose “greedy” might be the word to use, but it would certainly show that I was lacking in charity and in an understanding of what true piety is.

I’m not sure what greed is good or bad. But I do say, I dont think all competition and greed are necessarily bad. Greed is such a general term…

I think you are the one who introduced it into this portion of the discussion, though I admit that I’ve used it in the past. I would say that “greed” corresponds roughly to the Latin word “cupiditas” as Augustine used it (and is not really that different from “lust”). It’s a disordered desire for one’s own good in competition with the good of the neighbor or the common good. That’s how I’d define it at least.

Competition is not bad as long as we do not make success in the competition our primary goal. Of course winning is fun, but a healthy attitude to competition treats winning or losing lightly. If we can’t do that, then either we have the wrong attitude or the activity in question should not be competitive in the first place. (In other words, it’s fine to compete for a “good job,” because our hearts should not be set on getting a particularly prestigious or remunerative job–but no one should have to compete for daily bread.)

You still have not explained how care for the earth is “greedy,” presumably in a bad sense. And you still have not either defended or retracted your heretical claim that we are forced to sin simply by having earthly bodies.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

“Climate Change” is nothing but pure junk science designed to fill the wallets of unscrupulous politicians and to distract people from truly vital issues.

Although I agree with part of this, the validity of man made climate change is not the subject of this thread. Whether the theory that man can affect the climate is true or false doesn’t matter in addressing the claim made by the OP that there is a specifically Catholic response to the question.

I think it has been pretty well settled that there is not and we ought to let this thread die. Unquestionably there will be (numerous) other opportunities to debate global warming.

Ender

 

[TEPO]

That really is “the ends justify the means.” Isn’t it? You are saying that we should do something unbelievably wicked in order to produce a good result. That we should hold all human life–including the lives of the unborn, obviously–hostage in order to coerce our opponents.

This post confuses Me! How is it ends justify the means when the end clearly is death (in your opinion since you obviously believe in MMCC). So it justifies nothing. You would be better in saying that my suggestion is: means destroys the end.
But that is obviously not the outcome I see… Unless you see that the end will not be death??? is that why you say the end will justify the mean?

In other words, you must not believe in the urgency of MMCC, and that it will cause the destruction of earth if we pass this so called “tipping point”… Or do you believe that the Liberals would rather destroy the earth than end abortion?

And furthermore, why would you side with Liberals who would do something so evil? You dont want this perfect opportunity?

Or do you think my idea is greedy. If so how?

 

[TEPO]

After all, you did say that greed was:

“a disordered desire for one’s own good in competition with the good of the neighbor or the common good”

So if we are competing for GOD’s desire, rather than our own, and the other side is Godless, there should be no sin for us right?
Would’nt God reward us in more ways than one for doing his good will?

We could have no abortion, and a good environment. This would prevent earth-worship, abortion, and keep God first in all society… The world would have GOD!!!

 

[TEPO]

Read More: traditioninaction.org/religious/n020rp_Complacence.htm

“When Silence and Complacence Are Sins”

“Often we have been censured for speaking out against Progressivism in the Church and in revolutionary customs. “You aren’t priests or theologians,” “You aren’t in charge of their formation,” are some comments of critics said to us as a pretext to keep us quiet.”

“Actually, their argument is futile. Every Catholic has the obligation to denounce error wherever and whenever it appears. St. Gertrude, who received countless revelations from Our Lord, tells us that we have the duty to correct the error, otherwise we sin.”

 

[4elise]

Read More: traditioninaction.org/religious/n020rp_Complacence.htm

“When Silence and Complacence Are Sins”

“Often we have been censured for speaking out against Progressivism in the Church and in revolutionary customs. “You aren’t priests or theologians,” “You aren’t in charge of their formation,” are some comments of critics said to us as a pretext to keep us quiet.”

“Actually, their argument is futile. Every Catholic has the obligation to denounce error wherever and whenever it appears. St. Gertrude, who received countless revelations from Our Lord, tells us that we have the duty to correct the error, otherwise we sin.”

TEPO - please read my post #936 – I believe what you are hearing people say - which I do not believe is being said is that it is *** one (stop abortion) ***or the other *** two (work to end MMCC)

It is not one or the other but both that we should be working for - what kind of world will we leave for the unborn? One in which they can not live?

 

[TEPO]

TEPO - please read my post #936 – I believe what you are hearing people say - which I do not believe is being said is that it is *** one (stop abortion) ***or the other *** two (work to end MMCC)

It is not one or the other but both that we should be working for - what kind of world will we leave for the unborn? One in which they can not live?

I’m assuming that what you mean is that since the Pope offers up his support to the U.N., that every Catholic should follow-up and offer their support to the U.N. also… I disagree.

The Pope’s responsibility to try to keep the Catholic Church involved in world affairs has nothing to do with our faith, or our resposibilities. All his messages on his “support” are merely political moves to stay “in the game”.

Our job is to make individual choices like useing power strips…

My latest objective, however, is a political one. It is: If all Catholic Americans threatened to not vote for a politician that supported abortion, and dually threatened to not support cap and trade, the pro-abortionists would be forced into submission. We could end abortion. Perfect opportunity… So even though some say it is not a “one or the other” thing - well in American politics - it really is.

We could have a world that God would be proud of. He might even create miracles where all people could unite and stop abusing co2…

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

Although I agree with part of this, the validity of man made climate change is not the subject of this thread.

Perhaps not, but it implies that it is man-made, because if it didn’t what action could be employed to stop it? … the thread might as well say, “Putting Catholic faith into action on stopping earthquakes.”

.

I think it has been pretty well settled that there is not and we ought to let this thread die.

Precisely.

---

In Corde Regis,***
Joshua

 

[4elise]

I’m assuming that what you mean is that since the Pope offers up his support to the U.N., that every Catholic should follow-up and offer their support to the U.N. also… I disagree.

Wrong assumption.
I am not even suggesting that the Pope supports the UN, rather offer his words on the importance of the issue TO the UN.

The Pope’s responsibility to try to keep the Catholic Church involved in world affairs has nothing to do with our faith, or our resposibilities. All his messages on his “support” are merely political moves to stay “in the game”.

If the Pope is to keep the Catholic Church (not the institution, but you and I) involved in world affairs - I disagree that it is a ‘political move’ - rather it is to ensure that action taken to address any of today’s issues are done so with the unique Catholic approach of: * Prudence—thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned action
* Poverty—concern for those least able to bear the burden
* The Common Good—promotion of solidarity over self-interest

Our job is to make individual choices like useing power strips…

Exactly, we should take PERSONAL actions to reduce any impact our actions could have - this may require personal sacrifice - but as people of faith we should be prepared to make these personal sacrifices for the common good.

My latest objective, however, is a political one. It is: If all Catholic Americans threatened to not vote for a politician that supported abortion, and dually threatened to not support cap and trade, the pro-abortionists would be forced into submission. We could end abortion. Perfect opportunity… So even though some say it is not a “one or the other” thing - well in American politics - it really is.

We could have a world that God would be proud of. He might even create miracles where all people could unite and stop abusing co2…

I understand your point but disagree with your conclusion - it is more complex, as you have previously argued about economics and abortion - it is not just in the hands of politicians but in each individual’s hands to work to end abortion, and the compassionate way that our Church responds is something like: catholicfamilyservices.org/caring_net.php

We apply that same response trying to work to prevent the pregnancies in the first place with education - once women feel they may be faced with that ‘choice’ - THEN we need to be there to help them find the LIFE alternative.

 

[Contarini]

This post confuses Me! How is it ends justify the means when the end clearly is death (in your opinion since you obviously believe in MMCC). So it justifies nothing. You would be better in saying that my suggestion is: means destroys the end.
But that is obviously not the outcome I see… Unless you see that the end will not be death??? is that why you say the end will justify the mean?

“End” in this context means “final purpose.” That’s what the phrase has always meant. Sorry if you were confused by this. The point is that a good purpose (to end abortion) does not justify the use of wicked means (deliberately allowing mass destruction of life or threatening to do so).

What do you mean by “the ends justify the means”?

Furthermore, I was assuming that like Cardinal Newman you think that the destruction of all life and of the whole universe would be preferable to the commission of a single sin. (Of course, that assumes that the course of action you are advocating is not itself sinful, which I think it clearly is.) Therefore, the final result in your view would be preferable.

In other words, you must not believe in the urgency of MMCC, and that it will cause the destruction of earth if we pass this so called “tipping point”

What do you mean by “destruction of earth”? Destruction of all life on earth? Highly unlikely. Destruction of the human race? Possible (since Jesus said we wouldn’t know when the End was coming–we have no promise that we would keep going as long as we have, let alone longer) but not in my opinion very likely. What I think will happen if something is not done is that the earth will become a much less pleasant place to live (for humans and for many other species). That’s bad enough. I agree that this is not certain–perhaps nothing bad will happen. But why take the chance? Why not live more simply and sustainably, since it’s good for us anyway?

And furthermore, why would you side with Liberals who would do something so evil

Why would I side with “conservatives” who would do something so evil? It works both ways. Liberals (as the term is defined these days) already support abortion, which is horrifically evil. No one’s hands are clean. I don’t “side” with any ideological faction blindly or without qualification. I try to “side” with truth, justice, mercy, and beauty as I best perceive them and as the Christian community teaches me to recognize them.

What you are proposing is, by your own admission above, monstrously evil (at least, you think it would be evil if liberals did it). So can’t you see that you have clearly discredited yourself?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

My latest objective, however, is a political one. It is: If all Catholic Americans threatened to not vote for a politician that supported abortion, and dually threatened to not support cap and trade, the pro-abortionists would be forced into submission. We could end abortion. Perfect opportunity… So even though some say it is not a “one or the other” thing - well in American politics - it really is.

I have no problem with the proposition that Catholics should not vote for a pro-abortion politician. The second part is as unnecessary as it is evil. You don’t have to boycott good policies in order to punish people for supporting bad ones. You just stop voting for those who support the bad ones.

We could have a world that God would be proud of. He might even create miracles where all people could unite and stop abusing co2…

I do not think that God would be proud of people who knowingly threaten to create death and suffering if their political enemies do not capitulate.

Edwin