Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[TEPO]

Putting Catholic faith into action = FATIMA

 

[4elise]

I’m glad I finally got you’re undivided attention. But really, look at the lines from this rediculous and highly opinionated newspaper. "After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalisation. " or “Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and “manipulative” genetic scientists beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.”

give me a break. These sins are not mortal. The reason some of the other “7 deadly sins” are mortal is because they break some of the Ten Commandments. Not all of them are mortal though. Sloth and anger are not mortal sins!! And neither is polluting the environment. it is venial. This paper even boasts about ““decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “securalised world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.” Give it up. Besides you should already know this.

Does your mommy know you are using the computer?
What are you talking about?

You are objecting to is the article’s characterization of a quote from a Catholic Bishop? Yikes! ---- I was pointing BACK to the quote from the Bishop - not the rest of the article… and that was the only reference I was making not the editorial content of the article.

This thread is about the way our Catholic faith may call us to respond to the issue of Global Climate Change — The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in partnership with

* Catholic Relief Services  
* National Council of Catholic Women  
* Catholic Health Association of the United States  
* Catholic Charities USA  
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference  
* Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities  
* Franciscan Action Network  
* Carmelite NGO  
* Leadership Conference of Women Religious 
* Conference of Major Superiors of Men

…are partners with the Catholic Coalition on Climate: catholicsandclimatechange.org/partners.html

Now some on this thread have said that they don’t think that the USCCB should accept the science of the IPCC, BUT they have -

Some have said that they don’t respect the Bishops for many of reasons - and that they shouldn’t be discussing this - but they have and they are. usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

Maybe kids should have to ask an adult to review their posts before they hit the submit reply button.

 

[TEPO]

Does your mommy know you are using the computer?
What are you talking about?

You are objecting to is the article’s characterization of a quote from a Catholic Bishop? Yikes! ---- I was pointing BACK to the quote from the Bishop - not the rest of the article… and that was the only reference I was making not the editorial content of the article.

This thread is about the way our Catholic faith may call us to respond to the issue of Global Climate Change — The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in partnership with

* Catholic Relief Services  
* National Council of Catholic Women  
* Catholic Health Association of the United States  
* Catholic Charities USA  
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference  
* Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities  
* Franciscan Action Network  
* Carmelite NGO  
* Leadership Conference of Women Religious 
* Conference of Major Superiors of Men

…are partners with the Catholic Coalition on Climate: catholicsandclimatechange.org/partners.html

Now some on this thread have said that they don’t think that the USCCB should accept the science of the IPCC, BUT they have -

Some have said that they don’t respect the Bishops for many of reasons - and that they shouldn’t be discussing this - but they have and they are. usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

Maybe kids should have to ask an adult to review their posts before they hit the submit reply button.

How many times do I have to repeat what phrase I am quoting? and I’m sure very few find your insults humorous. Let me try it again. this is the phrase that you went ahead and made-up all on your own was, and I quote: “That message was taken a step further when the church last month announced seven new sins that now require repentance.” This sin requires NO REPENTANCE! And do you think I’m acting childish because of my faith?

 

[sawman]

Man made climate change is a government fraud. the Catholic bishops aggreeing with the government entities that pertetrate the fraud does not make it true. If the bishops are on board withthe IPCC I think they are wrong . I will not support any initiative to further the fraud.
Peace, Tom

 

[TEPO]

Putting Catholic faith into action = FATIMA

 

[4elise]

How many times do I have to repeat what phrase I am quoting? and I’m sure very few find your insults humorous. Let me try it again. this is the phrase that you went ahead and made-up all on your own was, and I quote: “That message was taken a step further when the church last month announced seven new sins that now require repentance.” This sin requires NO REPENTANCE! And do you think I’m acting childish because of my faith?

newsweek.com/id/132523 FROM THIS ARTICLE:
As you will see ---- the content that you are objecting so strongly to is just that of the article - not original content from me that I included because they proceeded the quote from the Bishop (karumba) * (Newsweek surprise, surprise - misunderstand the theology of sin)* -** IT WAS THE QUOTE FROM THE BISHOP I was trying to point to. ** and knew that if I didn’t put it with the source I would be accused of making it up.

TEPO - shall we ‘reset’ and discuss the actual point?

 

[TEPO]

Does your mommy know you are using the computer?
What are you talking about?

You are objecting to is the article’s characterization of a quote from a Catholic Bishop? Yikes! ---- I was pointing BACK to the quote from the Bishop - not the rest of the article… and that was the only reference I was making not the editorial content of the article.

This thread is about the way our Catholic faith may call us to respond to the issue of Global Climate Change — The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in partnership with

* Catholic Relief Services  
* National Council of Catholic Women  
* Catholic Health Association of the United States  
* Catholic Charities USA  
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference  
* Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities  
* Franciscan Action Network  
* Carmelite NGO  
* Leadership Conference of Women Religious 
* Conference of Major Superiors of Men

…are partners with the Catholic Coalition on Climate: catholicsandclimatechange.org/partners.html

Now some on this thread have said that they don’t think that the USCCB should accept the science of the IPCC, BUT they have -

Some have said that they don’t respect the Bishops for many of reasons - and that they shouldn’t be discussing this - but they have and they are. usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

Maybe kids should have to ask an adult to review their posts before they hit the submit reply button.

Your articles are anti-catholic. You must work with them.

 

[4elise]

Your articles are anti-catholic. You must work with them.

They are not ‘my’ articles - they are articles that include a quote from a Catholic Bishop.

IT WAS THE BISHOP’S QUOTE*** “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.***

So… once again TEPO - do you want to ‘re-start’ this discussion??

 

[4elise]

Man made climate change is a government fraud. the Catholic bishops aggreeing with the government entities that pertetrate the fraud does not make it true. If the bishops are on board withthe IPCC I think they are wrong . I will not support any initiative to further the fraud.
Peace, Tom

Tom, I disagree with your conclusion, but understand that many believe as you do. I agree with the position of the bishops that we need to try to act in a way that keeps the poor at the heart of the discussion. I wish you Peace as well,

 

[Al_Masetti]

Double Breakthrough: Nature publishes Letter by 6 climate skeptics which tells of another breakthrough: A major scientific society has agreed to reconsider its alarmist Statement on Climate Change
links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=51&m=33681617&r=MjA1NjE2MDAwNAS2&b=2&j=NTM2ODU3NTkS1&mt=1&rt=0
Nature 460, 457 (23 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/460457b; Published online 22 July 2009

And here is the actual letter [you can’t access it unless you pay “Nature” some money].

================================================================
Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change
S. Fred Singer1, Hal Lewis2, Will Happer3, Larry Gould4, Roger Cohen5 & Robert H. Austin3

1. U of Virginia; 2. U of California, Santa Barbara; 3. Princeton U; 4. U of Hartford; 5. Durango, CO

We write in response to your issue discussing “the coming climate crunch”, including the Editorial ‘Time to act’ (Nature 458, 10771078; 2009). We feel it is alarmist.

  We are among more than 50 current and former members of the American Physical Society (APS) who have signed an open letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on climate change (see open letter at [tinyurl.com/lg266u;](http://tinyurl.com/lg266u;) APS statement at [tinyurl.com/56zqxr](http://tinyurl.com/56zqxr)). The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence. It requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue.

  On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists.  We applaud this decision.  It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues.

 

[Ender]

I am beginning to wonder about the motivation of those who so strongly resist the call to keep the needs of the poor at the heart of the discussion.

You keep repeating this phrase as if it somehow distinguished your intention from the intentions of others; it does not. You are concerned for the needs of the poor; so are we all, but the dispute is not whether we are concerned but whether we know how to solve problems, in this case the “problem” of global warming. Concern for the poor is of no particular help in resolving a scientific dispute.

Parents are concerned for the needs of their children but that concern doesn’t translate into knowledge about how best to meet those needs, as any parent who has agonized over an important decision will tell you. Wanting to do the right thing and knowing what the right thing is are two entirely different issues. It is not the needs of the poor that are at the heart of the discussion, it is the scientific debate about the validity of the theory of AGW. If I love the poor but am wrong on the scientific question there is no possible way my actions can be beneficial no matter how noble my intentions.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

It has seemed to me the last three years have been the coolest I have yet experienced. That’s in one location, of course. Still, I was told today that this is the fifth coolest year on record for my state.

I trust what I feel on my hide a lot more than computer models somebody comes up with in order to get a grant or an article in National Geographic or to sell carbon offsets or to tax people.

Bottom line, in the absence of being persuaded of the reality of manmade global warming and its alleged threat to humanity, I can see no good reason to oppress the poor by making their home heating costs go up and their food more expensive.

 

[Calliso]

It has seemed to me the last three years have been the coolest I have yet experienced. That’s in one location, of course. Still, I was told today that this is the fifth coolest year on record for my state.

I trust what I feel on my hide a lot more than computer models somebody comes up with in order to get a grant or an article in National Geographic or to sell carbon offsets or to tax people.

Bottom line, in the absence of being persuaded of the reality of manmade global warming and its alleged threat to humanity, I can see no good reason to oppress the poor by making their home heating costs go up and their food more expensive.

Well it is important to realize that your state isn;t the world. And record temps are made all the time either low or high. What matters here is the Global record and the long term record. When you look at just a few years all you are really looking at is weather. Remember long term not short term.

 

[Calliso]

Also from what I have read in reality the scientist that could show that AGW is false would be the one raking in the money. It would be kinda like disproving evolution or some other major thing in science. It would be huge and probably pretty much instant fame for that scientist or scientists.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well it is important to realize that your state isn;t the world. And record temps are made all the time either low or high. What matters here is the Global record and the long term record. When you look at just a few years all you are really looking at is weather. Remember long term not short term.

Yes, or so they say. Others, of course, have equally persuasive arguments in the opposite direction. Yet, despite all the debate and the charts and graphs and airport temperature readings and debates over whether antarctic ice is receding or growing, it’s cooler than normal on my skin, and has been for three years. And my state is strongly influenced both by tropical Gulf warmth and Canadian polar cold. It doesn’t make its own weather. Nor does it arrest cold and warmth at the borders.

 

[4elise]

You keep repeating this phrase as if it somehow distinguished your intention from the intentions of others; it does not. You are concerned for the needs of the poor; so are we all, but the dispute is not whether we are concerned but whether we know how to solve problems, in this case the “problem” of global warming. Concern for the poor is of no particular help in resolving a scientific dispute.

Parents are concerned for the needs of their children but that concern doesn’t translate into knowledge about how best to meet those needs, as any parent who has agonized over an important decision will tell you. Wanting to do the right thing and knowing what the right thing is are two entirely different issues. It is not the needs of the poor that are at the heart of the discussion, it is the scientific debate about the validity of the theory of AGW. If I love the poor but am wrong on the scientific question there is no possible way my actions can be beneficial no matter how noble my intentions.

Ender

I do see your point - and believe that you too have the needs of the poor as a concern. Others who may reject anything that points to MMCC may have another motivation, as you suspect those who accept MMCC have.

The bishops, as any parent who agonizes over the needs of their children, have sought to find an answer, and they have accepted the findings of the IPCC to than make suggestions on ways individuals and communities can respond to lessen the impact of climate change on the most vulnerable in the world.

And while wanting to do the right thing and doing the right thing may ultimately be different they are also not mutually exclusive. What else can we do, but what we think is the right thing?

I believe this is an article that we can ALL agree on…

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702383.htm

John Carr, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ secretary for social development and world peace, said Christian values seen in “the virtue of prudence, the pursuit of the common good and the protection of the poor” are important contributions to the climate-change debate and should be at the heart of policies aimed at addressing global warming.

Nonetheless, he said, the Vatican is cautious about what sort of pronouncements it makes about global warming.

Church leaders are aware scientific findings can sometimes be skewed by special-interest groups or overblown by an audience-hungry media.

The church, therefore, “seeks to draw fully from the treasury” of all scientific knowledge and experience and looks for “a true and balanced response” based on church teaching, Cardinal Martino said.

Silecchia said in some ways the environmental movement “has become its own new religion,” and this could be offset by a wider recognition of the church’s own tradition of God asking people to be stewards of creation.

Carr said the church’s approach to the problem of climate change is “from the bottom up” – having people’s basic needs shape the nature of policy.

International discussion has been expanding to include how the world’s weakest and poorest can be protected, he said.

“The church is not just another voice telling people to conserve energy and preserve the planet. It has the potential to bring its vast tradition to shed light on a troubled human family,” he wrote.

The church can “provide motivation, inspiration, love for life itself and for the earth and all of creation, to genuinely love those things and care for them,” he told CNS.
**
Instead of letting disagreements in the global warming debate continue to stall decisive action, “we have a Christian duty to live simple, responsible lives whether climate change is happening or not,” he said.**

 

[Sugabee43]

You keep repeating this phrase as if it somehow distinguished your intention from the intentions of others; it does not. You are concerned for the needs of the poor; so are we all, but the dispute is not whether we are concerned but whether we know how to solve problems, in this case the “problem” of global warming. Concern for the poor is of no particular help in resolving a scientific dispute.

Parents are concerned for the needs of their children but that concern doesn’t translate into knowledge about how best to meet those needs, as any parent who has agonized over an important decision will tell you. Wanting to do the right thing and knowing what the right thing is are two entirely different issues. It is not the needs of the poor that are at the heart of the discussion, it is the scientific debate about the validity of the theory of AGW. If I love the poor but am wrong on the scientific question there is no possible way my actions can be beneficial no matter how noble my intentions.

Ender

Thank you!!! :clapping:
I cannot believe this discussion is even occurring. Thirty years ago, the vast majority of scientists were crying about Global Cooling - what happened with that??

 

[Ridgerunner]

Also from what I have read in reality the scientist that could show that AGW is false would be the one raking in the money. It would be kinda like disproving evolution or some other major thing in science. It would be huge and probably pretty much instant fame for that scientist or scientists.

Not if nobody was paying for the information, he wouldn’t. There are indeed scientists of good repute who say precisely that manmade global warming is bunk, and have the charts and graphs and stuff to prove it. We’ve seen a lot of those in here. But they don’t get the the magazine space or the television time. And they certainly don’t get the patronage from those who would benefit financially from things like cap and trade. There are a number of people and corporations who are going to make a lot of money off the alleged cures for global warming. (All of which “cures” are futile with China building a coal-fired plant every ten days and already surpassing us in CO2 output) And, there are a lot more people who are going to pay the price for those “cures”.

 

[4elise]

Not if nobody was paying for the information, he wouldn’t. There are indeed scientists of good repute who say precisely that manmade global warming is bunk, and have the charts and graphs and stuff to prove it. We’ve seen a lot of those in here. But they don’t get the the magazine space or the television time. And they certainly don’t get the patronage from those who would benefit financially from things like cap and trade. There are a number of people and corporations who are going to make a lot of money off the alleged cures for global warming. (All of which “cures” are futile with China building a coal-fired plant every ten days and already surpassing us in CO2 output) And, there are a lot more people who are going to pay the price for those “cures”.

And you don’t think that there are those who profit from NOT making changes who would like to influence policy?

 

[TEPO]

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

You used an article by newsweek that had faulty information. I dont care about what you think the Bishops quote meant. I think you use quotes from anti-Catholic sources as a tool to impress your misguided interpretations on Catholics. You should have corrected the quote from newsweek, but since repentance is not an issue for you, you didnt. You only care about the poor right? I have my doubts. I am poor, and I want to state my opinion. I have every right to do so without being degraded by you. Your thread is a broken record.