Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4elise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**mpi is the ultimate authority?:eek:

darn:blush:I thought I knew everything.—(just joshin’, dude!:D-it was the “Those who deny what I said…” statement!👍)

I suppose that what you mean by this is that The Holy Father is not saying that it is the governments responsibility to reduce our carbon footprints, but the responsibility of the individual. Is that what you are saying?**
I might actually buy into that…show us, please? oh ultimate authoritative one!
I certainly agree that we each need to take action - we have a great responsibility. But IMHO (and apparently the Holy Father’s as well) acting as individuals will not be enough.

It is interesting to note that the Vatican is working at being the first carbon neutral state. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0704015.htm
 
The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri says in an interview: “India is in no position to accept caps.”

Is this just part of a well-coordinated bargaining position in advance of the Copenhagen talks later this year? No. Research conducted by Dr. Pachauri’s group at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) concludes that India needs as much as $11.9 trillion to transition to a “low-carbon economy” over the next 25 years. To put this number into context, it is 10 times India’s current GDP.

If policy makers believe Pachauri’s TERI analysis, then of course India is not going to commit to reducing emissions, unless the developed countries show up with a multi-trillion-dollar+ blank check. These numbers also help to explain Indian skepticism over Hillary Clinton’s claim that following a low-carbon growth path can help grow the Indian economy.

Roger Pielke Jr, 21 July 2009

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/

www.rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-from-india-ten-times-gdp

If the link doesn’t work for you, just scroll down to the 21 July entry … there is a video as well.

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-from-india-ten-times-gdp.html

The Web site is a veritable gold mine of interesting environmental and climate change information.

So, refresh me again … how is imposing all these punishing cap and trade rules going to help the poor.
 
"Ender:
Show me the statement where the Church says we have a moral obligation to believe in AGW and I’ll accept that this is a moral issue.
Catholic World News (CWN)
Feature Stories
**Moral duty to combat climate change, Vatican envoy tells UN **(Subscribe to RSS Feed)
Does a headline in a purportedly Catholic newspaper constitute Church teaching?
Climate change is “a serious concern and an inescapable responsibility,” a Vatican envoy told the UN General Assembly.
  1. Does a comment from a “Vatican envoy” constitute Church teaching? (2) Saying climate change is a concern and a responsibility is not at all to say “Faithful Catholics must accept the theory of AGW.”
“the underlying moral imperative that everyone, without exception, has a grave responsibility to protect the environment.”
I’m all for protecting the environment but there is nothing here that specifies how.
While demanding effective action to avert ecological disaster, Msgr. Parolin called for a balanced and careful approach. He said that scientific evidence shows “a link between human activity and climate change.” However, he said, the strength of that evidence “should neither be exaggerated nor minimized in the name of politics, ideologies, or self-interest.”
I’m all for effective action so I satisfy this requirement. Again, nothing here that suggests a moral obligation to accept AGW.
The Vatican representative called for coordinated efforts by the world’s nations to resolve the problem of climate change, observing that "we need to overcome self-interest through collective action."
Once again there is nothing here that obligates me to believe in AGW. Self interest is not the issue; the issue is the scientific question of whether man can have any meaningful effect on climate.

I understand all the suggestions and implications in what you quoted but there is nothing there that disproves my claim that there is no moral obligation to believe in AGW. You’ve done your best to make your case but you have been unable to produce anything showing that it is sinful to disagree with the theory of AGW for the obvious reason that it isn’t. Catholics in good faith may be on either side of this question which is why there isn’t such a thing as “Catholic” action on climate change.

Ender
 
Weren’t any of you around during the 70s?

The Gaia-first crowd can pat themselves on the back for embracing outmoded, dangerous hippie technology in the name of ‘saving the planet.’

All they’re accomplishing is saving marxism.
 
NTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE
AT THE MEETING OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
DEBATING ON THE THEME: “ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE:
THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE WORLD AT WORK”
(NEW YORK, 11 - 12 FEBRUARY 2008)

ADDRESS OF H.E. MSGR. CELESTINO MIGLIORE

Tuesday, 12 February 2008

Mr President,

The ongoing debate on climate change has helped put into focus the inescapable responsibility of one and all to care for the environment, thereby building consensus around the common objective of promoting a healthy environment for present and future generations.

The recent UN Climate Change Conference in Bali has shown that through increased concern for our neighbour, in particular for those most vulnerable to climatic change, we are better equipped to adopt strategies and policies which balance the needs of humanity with the urgency for a more responsible stewardship.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2008/documents/rc_seg-st_20080212_climate-change_en.html

Darned hippy liberal Vatican…😉
 
Let us be cautious in our complete understanding of the distinction then, when considering the Catholic churches stance on “caring for creation and “meeting the needs of the poor”. What we actually have are two solutions blended into one by the American Leftists. Let me explain; The Church calls for an “International Adaptation Program” which is by no means another word for “Cap and Trade”. Keep in mind the rules for cap and trade have swayed from—proceeds go to research programs in alternative energy, to wait no proceeds go directly to U.S. Citizens. Please; Lets explore our options first.

The Pope calls for in his most recent address on the issue, for prudence—

“Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it
means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken”.

What we ultimately have is an indecision on which road is most responsible. Because we don’t, however, agree on the same road, doesn’t necessarily mean anyone is postponing anything. We must take into consideration scientific views from all sides, and come up with a plan that works for everyone. NOT JUST THE U.N…
Acting too quickly on the issue and not giving everyone a chance to throw in their ideas is selfish, and can/will prove damaging. Look at what happened when various Nations advocated slavery decades ago. They also thought they were doing no harm in Gods eye. I strongly disagree. It was indeed the elitists even then that coaxed the church into allowing slave owners to *feel *sin free. Then we had Civil War. Who judges sin but God. Man has only free will.
We are headed down a confusing road my friends. I myself cannot continue down this road without feeling that something is turning within my stomach. It feels like something is wrong.
I love the environment. I’m on a camping trip right now as I write this. I saw a bobcat last week in these woods I am staying in. This thing actually came tearing down a tree that I chased it up in. Extremely exciting!! I’ve seen spotted owls, deer, California condors, etc. I love nature. But I absolutely Hate politics.
We need to find common ground my friends, because I dont want to starve after cap and trade gets voted in. I dont want a filthy environment either. Lets all stop being like brick walls and GIVE A LITTLE!!

Here is a nicely balanced quote from Msgr. Pietro Parolin (Vatican Under-Secretary of State)

catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf

“In recent times, it has been unsettling to note how some commentators have said that we should actually exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences, using a world view supposedly based on faith. We strongly believe that this is a fundamentally reckless approach. At the other extreme, there are those who hold up the earth as the only good, and would characterize humanity as an irredeemable threat to the earth, whose population and activity need to be controlled by various drastic means. We strongly believe that such assertions would place human beings and their needs at the service of an inhuman ecology. I have highlighted these two extreme positions to make my point, but similar, though less extreme attitudes, would also clearly impede any sound global attempts to promote mitigation, adaptation, resilience and the safeguarding of our common future.”
 
Let us be cautious in our complete understanding of the distinction then, when considering the Catholic churches stance on “caring for creation and “meeting the needs of the poor”. …(deletion for the sake of brevity…)

Here is a nicely balanced quote from Msgr. Pietro Parolin (Vatican Under-Secretary of State)

catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf

“In recent times, it has been unsettling to note how some commentators have said that we should actually exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences, using a world view supposedly based on faith. We strongly believe that this is a fundamentally reckless approach. At the other extreme, there are those who hold up the earth as the only good, and would characterize humanity as an irredeemable threat to the earth, whose population and activity need to be controlled by various drastic means. We strongly believe that such assertions would place human beings and their needs at the service of an inhuman ecology. I have highlighted these two extreme positions to make my point, but similar, though less extreme attitudes, would also clearly impede any sound global attempts to promote mitigation, adaptation, resilience and the safeguarding of our common future.”
**I so much want to comment on this, but I honestly do not know what I can say except that I concur. I appreciate your sentiments and I find your logic irrefutable. 👍

The fact remains that it is an issue that we are all called upon to address.

Bobcats are cool…I once looked a mountain goat in the eye while hiking through the Grand Canyon. It was very cool…😉 I turned a corner on a trail and he was right there less than 10 feet from me. He calmly turned and walked away…my heart was pounding.**
 
What we ultimately have is an indecision on which road is most responsible. Because we don’t, however, agree on the same road, doesn’t necessarily mean anyone is postponing anything.
This is the essence of the entire debate: there is no agreement on what actions will prove most beneficial. There is no disagreement on **whether **we should act responsibly, prudently, and with concern for the poor, the disagreement is entirely on **how **to accomplish those shared goals. Since the intent is the same on both sides of the debate, the actions each side supports are morally equivalent regardless of the outcomes.

Ender
 
“Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and **postponing decisions; **it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken”.

What we ultimately have is an indecision on which road is most responsible. Because we don’t, however, agree on the same road, doesn’t necessarily mean anyone is postponing anything.
  • but similar, though less extreme attitudes, would also clearly impede any sound global attempts to promote mitigation, adaptation, resilience and the safeguarding of our common future.*"
If standing at a fork in the road – one leads to action - the other leads to inaction - by standing at the fork, indefinitely undecided, we have in fact made a choice.

Have a nice camping trip — I have to work this weekend, so am just a bit **green! **😉
 
40.png
4elise:
If standing at a fork in the road – one leads to action - the other leads to inaction - by standing at the fork, indefinitely undecided, we have in fact made a choice.

Pope Benedict XVI "Before it is too late, it is necessary to make courageous decisions”

catholicclimatecovenant.org/
 
If standing at a fork in the road – one leads to action - the other leads to inaction - by standing at the fork, indefinitely undecided, we have in fact made a choice.
Very seldom is it better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; it would appear that doctors have it right: First, do no harm. Also, do not take inaction for indecision. I have decided that taking action affecting the climate is no more possible than taking action to make Saturdays arrive sooner.

Ender
 
In spite of all the warm-fuzzies, when you align yourself with the climate-change pushers, you align yourself with eugenicists.’

Like it or not, that is the brutal truth.
 
Very seldom is it better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; it would appear that doctors have it right: First, do no harm. Also, do not take inaction for indecision. I have decided that taking action affecting the climate is no more possible than taking action to make Saturdays arrive sooner.

Ender
Often, immediate action before all the facts are known does do harm. “First, do no harm” is a good principle to follow. The proposed solutions to climate change will do harm.

[Yet, I have become convinced that entropy is true, and that the universe is indeed running down. Why is our government and the U.N. not taking immediate action to forestall this coming disaster? Perhaps we could have a thread about putting Catholic faith into action to reverse entropy.]
 
40.png
4elise:
If standing at a fork in the road – one leads to action - the other leads to inaction - by standing at the fork, indefinitely undecided, we have in fact made a choice.

Have a nice camping trip — I have to work this weekend, so am just a bit **green! **😉

And by the same token,…to quote Geddy Lee from the rock band “RUSH” - "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice!
 
Very seldom is it better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; it would appear that doctors have it right: First, do no harm. Also, do not take inaction for indecision. I have decided that taking action affecting the climate is no more possible than taking action to make Saturdays arrive sooner.

Ender
**In the meantime.Since it isn’t garbage day, yet. The trash can in the kitchen gets more full every minute…Isn’t it time to take out the trash?**assuming of course that Saturday is trash day…
 
**In the meantime.Since it isn’t garbage day, yet. The trash can in the kitchen gets more full every minute…Isn’t it time to take out the trash?**assuming of course that Saturday is trash day…
Absolutely, especially when it smells … and there is a distinctly fishy odor coming from the theory of AGW. The sooner it is thrown out the better.

Ender
 
Very seldom is it better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; it would appear that doctors have it right: First, do no harm. Also, do not take inaction for indecision. I have decided that taking action affecting the climate is no more possible than taking action to make Saturdays arrive sooner.

Ender
If the patient presents with abdominal pain - which turns out to be an appendix ready to burst - no, waiting just won’t do. Sepsis, and death follow.
I have decided that taking action is essential. Both personal and by policies.
 
In spite of all the warm-fuzzies, when you align yourself with the climate-change pushers, you align yourself with eugenicists.’

Like it or not, that is the brutal truth.
So, are you saying that the Vatican is aligned with pro- abortionists? because that is what a eugenecist is.
 
Absolutely, especially when it smells … and there is a distinctly fishy odor coming from the theory of AGW. The sooner it is thrown out the better.

Ender
I do appreciate a fellow sarcasmite! 😉
Again, I reassert my belief that the lines between the Protestant fundamentalist interpretation of “conservative” (thank you Rush and Glenn!
) and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church seem to get more and more muddled all the time…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top