Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4elise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TEPO said:
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.
Click to expand...
My sincere apologizes if you took my ribbing about your apparent misunderstanding to imply that you must be young - as an insult. Not intended.

I however was deeply offended when you questioned my Catholism - and again assumed that such an immature comment reflected that you must be very young.

You apparently are having difficulty making a distinction between what I am trying to say - I put the quote from the bishop in - and want to site the source - not endorse the rest of the article - just indicate where it came from as in - so it would be clear that I didn’t make up the quote…

Now you may not be able to understand this distinction - but that is what it is.

I would like to invite you to read post that includes this article
catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/0702383.htm

I COMPLETELY get it that we disagree - and have tried to illustrate the information from the Vatican understands that people disagree on this topic - and would like to continue to do so without being disagreeable, ok? 😉
 
4elise said:
My sincere apologizes if you took my ribbing about your apparent misunderstanding to imply that you must be young - as an insult. Not intended.

I however was deeply offended when you questioned my Catholism - and again assumed that such an immature comment reflected that you must be very young.

You apparently are having difficulty making a distinction between what I am trying to say - I put the quote from the bishop in - and want to site the source - not endorse the rest of the article - just indicate where it came from as in - so it would be clear that I didn’t make up the quote…

Now you may not be able to understand this distinction - but that is what it is.

I would like to invite you to read post that includes this article
catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/0702383.htm

I COMPLETELY get it that we disagree - and have tried to illustrate the information from the Vatican understands that people disagree on this topic - and would like to continue to do so without being disagreeable, ok? 😉
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of immature is meaningless judging by your views on many issues, including your way over inflated interpretation of putting Catholic faith into action on climate change. Your thread is a broken record. Arent there any reputable sources for proving the quote?
 
You know what? I don’t know how old you are, but I was just old enough to remember it. Always, in any era you pick, there will be citations that refute both points of view. In any case, the world will be here long after we humans have gone. We don’t have enough power to actually hurt the Earth substantially, IMO. There are much more important things to worry about -like the present administration’s penchant for reorganizing our current form of government. Read Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”.
 
4elise said:
And you don’t think that there are those who profit from NOT making changes who would like to influence policy?
Click to expand...
Exactly when you look at who much of these skeptics are funded by. Not to mention they do get attention they can get into the peer reviewed papers. They certainly get in the news. There has been television programs made by them. Like the great global warming hoax. It is completely false to say they get less attention. Just simply because one sees less papers and what not saying agw is false doesn;t mean they are purposely getting less attention.

Not to mention I have seen many of these graphes and what not and trust me agw hasn;t been disproven by any measure.
 
Sugabee43 said:
You know what? I don’t know how old you are, but I was just old enough to remember it. Always, in any era you pick, there will be citations that refute both points of view. In any case, the world will be here long after we humans have gone. We don’t have enough power to actually hurt the Earth substantially, IMO. There are much more important things to worry about -like the present administration’s penchant for reorganizing our current form of government. Read Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”.
Click to expand...
Ok the MEDIA may have picked up on the few scientists that may have hinted that they thought a long term period of cooling could occur or even misresented what they said. But the media is not science. And we donlt have enough power to hurt the earth;s itself. That doesn;t mean we dont have the power to hurt our own enviroment and those that live in it.
 
Okay.🙂

I still think this is way overblown. But that’s my opinion and no-one has to agree with me. But I don’t want my government to force me to pay for something I don’t believe in. That’s already happening with funding for abortion and stem cell research.
 
TEPO said:
Your interpretation of immature is meaningless judging by your views on many issues, including your way over inflated interpretation of putting Catholic faith into action on climate change. Your thread is a broken record. Arent there any reputable sources for proving the quote?
Click to expand...
TEPO - I must admit that your responses leave me confused, and I am not sure how to respond - but I want to do so in charity…
  1. my views on many issues are immature? which ones? in what way?
  2. You say that I have an over inflated interpretation (again working to avoid taking this as an insult) of putting Catholic faith into action on climate change? The information I am posting here comes DIRECTLY from the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change catholicsandclimatechange.org/partners.html - of which the USCCB is a partner as well as these other CATHOLICS ORGANIZATIONS / GROUPS - I am adding a few of the links too…
So take a look at these very reputable sources and let me know what you think after you’ve read this and perhaps we can have a discussion on the topic of the thread - putting Catholic faith into action on climate change — which you consider a broken record - I consider it a consistent discussion.
 
Encyclical letter / Caritas in Veritate
Benedict xvi
*
  1. This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world’s population. On this earth there is room for everyone: Here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — god’s gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of god, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”[120]. Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: The protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet[121]. One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free.
Click to expand...
 
4elise said:
And you don’t think that there are those who profit from NOT making changes who would like to influence policy?
Click to expand...
Those who profit from the absence of cap and trade already do. Further, there is the very strong likelihood the financially strongest of them are going to be able to buy sufficient influence to obtain waivers or create their own “offsets”. That’s already going on in anticipation of cap and trade. I can think,for example, of utility companies in my own state that have already obtained rate increases to fund their “green energy” plans to supposedly offset their CO2 emissions. So the net effect on emissions is zero, the only thing that will change are the utility rates that go into the “green energy” rathole to pay for things that are otherwise not economically viable.

The big money in virtually everything is based on shifts; e.g., shifts to computers, to gold in a dollar panic, to autos in the 1920s, to corn in the “ethanol bubble”, to housing in 2006, away from housing in 2007-2008 and to nearly any stock you want to name in March/April, 2009. There will be a lot of money made on cap and trade by speculative entrepreneurs who will receive heavy subsidies to make a sow’s ear look like a silk purse. The government will make money. The existing power users will make money if they have the money to set up bogus “green energy” offsets. Consumers and taxpayers will lose.
 
FROM: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903432.htm
POPE-PEACEDAY Jul-29-2009 (430 words) xxxi
Click to expand...
Pope’s message for 2010 World Peace Day will focus on environment
Click to expand...
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
Click to expand...
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Pope Benedict XVI will focus on the connection between protecting the environment and working for peace in the message he will publish for World Peace Day in 2010, the Vatican said.
Click to expand...
The theme the pope has chosen for the Jan. 1 celebration is “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Safeguard Creation,” the Vatican announced July 29.
Click to expand...
**The Vatican said the pope intends to discuss the fact that in a globalized world there is a strict connection between protecting the environment and promoting peace.
Click to expand...
“The use of resources, climate change, the application and use of biotechnologies (and) demographic growth” are all issues that can have repercussions across national borders for generations to come, the statement said.
Click to expand...
The papal message will underline the fact that protecting the natural environment is a challenge all people must face together, recognizing they have an obligation to respect a gift God created for all, it said.
**
Pope Benedict also wants to emphasize how the “current ecological crisis” is impacting the entire world and, therefore, requires international action to resolve, it said.
Click to expand...
“If one wants to cultivate the good of peace, in fact, one must promote a renewed awareness of the interdependence that links the earth’s inhabitants to one another,” the Vatican statement said.
Click to expand...
Together people must preserve and restore the natural environment, eliminating at least some of the causes of environmental disasters, it said.
Click to expand...
The Vatican statement said Pope Benedict intends his World Peace Day message to be a further development of the four paragraphs on the environment included in his encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” (“Charity in Truth”).
Click to expand...
In his encyclical, published in early July, Pope Benedict said, “The environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility toward the poor, toward future generations and toward humanity as a whole.”
Click to expand...
While the encyclical focused on development, and therefore discussed the need to share natural resources equitably and not exploit those found in poor countries, it also insisted there is a connection between environmental protection and peace.
Click to expand...
“The stockpiling of natural resources, which in many cases are found in the poor countries themselves, gives rise to exploitation and frequent conflicts between and within nations. These conflicts are often fought on the soil of those same countries, with a heavy toll of death, destruction and further decay,” the encyclical said.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict’s message for the World Day of Peace in 2008, which focused on the family and on the world’s population as forming one human family, also included a section on the obligation to protect the environment.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t see anything in the Catholic News Service article which addresses what Ridgerunner says here:

Ridgerunner said:
“There will be a lot of money made on cap and trade by speculative entrepreneurs who will receive heavy subsidies to make a sow’s ear look like a silk purse. The government will make money. The existing power users will make money if they have the money to set up bogus “green energy” offsets. Consumers and taxpayers will lose.”
Click to expand...

Whenever I read a piece about environmentalism, especially from religious sources, it seems to be long on platitudes and short on specifics, leaving me to wonder, “so what are they saying? what course of action is being advocated here?”
 
In a way, ‘climate change’ is a moral issue: the side that believes it insists it is a moral imperative.

That is their right, but they are incorrect.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
In a way, ‘climate change’ is a moral issue: the side that believes it insists it is a moral imperative.

That is their right, but they are incorrect.
Click to expand...
The fact that cap and trade will make food, energy, transporation and shelter more expensive for those who need it is also a moral issue. If global warming was an absolute certitude, like the radiation of energy from he sun or the influence of the moon on the tides, the two would still have to be balanced regarding effect. But manmade global warming is not a scientific certitude, and many disagree about it. So, on the one hand, there is the certainty that peoples’ necessities will be made less available to them, balance off against an uncertainty.

It seems to me the moral balance here favors NOT enacting cap and trade.
 
In my opinion the Pope may see the inevidable truth of globalization. He must realize that the only way the Catholic church is to remain a player in “the govornment”, is to play the game. It is true, I suppose that environmentalism technically is not anti-Catholic. And there is really no way of the Pope knowing the true outcome for the poor when dealing with cap and trade. Who knows exactly how much damage it will cause? So the Pope is correct. In my eye.
However, who is to say what level of importance environmentalism should play within the Church? Environmentalism can be addictive right? Just like any ideology. How far should we let this new factor work its way into our faith. And what damages will it have on Catholocism if Global warming ends up a hoax?
When communism was a global factor, the church had a serious obligation to combat the evil forces of totalitarianism. What factor does FATIMA play in our faith today? Why do there seem to be conflictions within the church. Why ?
 
Perhaps the best test of truth is to figure out who the enemy of the church is for. Communism destroyed the Catholic faith on a large scale. What do the communists want?
 
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not saying your state makes its own weather just trying to say what you experience is weather right now. Three years is not a long enough time to determine a climatic trend. This link might help you further understand why you can;t look at such short periods. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/ And that looks at longer time periods then you are talking about. But see how it bounces all over the place when you look at such short time periods?
 
TEPO said:
In my opinion the Pope may see the inevidable truth of globalization. He must realize that the only way the Catholic church is to remain a player in “the govornment”, is to play the game. It is true, I suppose that environmentalism technically is not anti-Catholic. And there is really no way of the Pope knowing the true outcome for the poor when dealing with cap and trade. Who knows exactly how much damage it will cause? So the Pope is correct. In my eye.
However, who is to say what level of importance environmentalism should play within the Church? Environmentalism can be addictive right? Just like any ideology. How far should we let this new factor work its way into our faith. And what damages will it have on Catholocism if Global warming ends up a hoax?
When communism was a global factor, the church had a serious obligation to combat the evil forces of totalitarianism. What factor does FATIMA play in our faith today? Why do there seem to be conflictions within the church. Why ?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Coalition on Climate change advocates many “do it yourself” type remedies for the lay persons such as washing dishes with cold water etc. for the cause of Global climate change. Is this in the best interest of the Church should the climate change issue be a hoax, which millions of American Catholics believe it is?
 
4elise said:
Others who may reject anything that points to MMCC may have another motivation, as you suspect those who accept MMCC have.
Click to expand...
I do not question the motivation of those who accept MMCC for two reasons: I cannot know their motivations and to condemn them without knowing would be uncharitable and an example of rash judgment. More significantly however, their motivations are irrelevant.
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?
Click to expand...
We must each do what we think is right. The point of this debate is whether our Catholic faith compels us to act in a particular way and on this issue, since there is no Catholic position on the truth of the theory of global warming, there is no “Catholic” way to act.
40.png
4elise:
And you don’t think that there are those who profit from NOT making changes who would like to influence policy?
Click to expand...
40.png
Calliso:
Exactly when you look at who much of these skeptics are funded by.
Click to expand...
These are arguments that should not be made. It is unjust to attack people by implying their motivations are improper when it is simply impossible to know what motivates them. As I said above, beyond the wholly improper judgment being made about others, even if those who oppose you do so from the worst of intentions, this does not mean their position is incorrect.

Man either has or has not contributed to global warming and that fact is totally unaffected by the ethical nature of the people who take one side or the other. Unchristian attacks on the motivations of strangers are not meant to answer questions of truth but are intended solely to eliminate the need to respond to the arguments presented. If you can rebut your opponents positions then do so but don’t run from arguments by slandering those who present them.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top