Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4elise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THE POPE IN THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER “CARITAS IN VERITATE” JUNE 29, 2009

—“only in truth can charity be authentically lived.”—

—“ Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity. That light is both the light of reason and the light of faith, through which the intellect attains to the natural and supernatural truth of charity: it grasps its meaning as gift, acceptance, and communion”—

— “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality.”—

—“ In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite.”—

—“ Truth frees charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content, and of a fideism that deprives it of human and universal breathing-space”—

—“ In the truth, charity reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in the God of the Bible”—

—“ Because it is filled with truth, charity can be understood in the abundance of its values, it can be shared and communicated. Truth, in fact, is lógos which creates diá-logos, and hence communication and communion.”

— “Truth, by enabling men and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, allows them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of the value and substance of things.”—

—“ Truth opens and unites our minds in the lógos of love: this is the Christian proclamation and testimony of charity”—

—“ Without truth, charity is confined to a narrow field devoid of relations.”

— “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”[11] She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation.”

Now let me just ask; What is the truth? And explain to me why those who conclude climate change is not real including 60 German scientists who some are even members of the IPCC are being dismissed from the debate!!! What is the rush!!! Is there something to hide???
 
Once again: 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.

P.S. I havent mastered the whole quote thing, but my point is that “taking action” is not neccesarily essential by Catholic “policy”.
 
TEPO said:
Once again: 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.

P.S. I havent mastered the whole quote thing, but my point is that “taking action” is not neccesarily essential by Catholic “policy”.
Click to expand...
Since there will always be differing points of view - at what point do you say - ok, enough people heard from, now we do or don’t take action? The IPCC is not the UN… FYI - ipcc.ch/
 
TEPO said:
Now let me just ask; What is the truth? And explain to me why those who conclude climate change is not real including 60 German scientists who some are even members of the IPCC are being dismissed from the debate!!! What is the rush!!! Is there something to hide???
Click to expand...
**I love that encyclical!👍 It makes me feel vindicated. Which may be a sin of pride:blush: (I’ll ask my priest)

anyway…

I do not know why the Deutsche Wissenschaftler are being dismissed. Möglicherweise sind sie Unterbrechungs! (perhaps they are being disruptive). I do know however that there are several sections pointing to proper care of the environment. Here is just one…**
  1. Today the subject of development is also closely related to the duties arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the believer recognizes the wonderful result of God’s creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abusing it. Neither attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as the fruit of God’s creation.
Click to expand...
And also on the subject of global warming

**from
**INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE 15th SESSION
OF THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

ADDRESS OF H.E. MSGR. CELESTINO MIGLIORE

New York
Thursday, 10 May 2007
The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well. The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk.
Click to expand...
**Thank you TEPO for engaging in this discussion. You are doing very well in helping me with my research. **
 
—The link between U.N. and IPCC—

catholicsandclimatechange.org/pdf/FAQ.pdf

“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."

But my question is who is “we”.? Because more than half of catholics (rough estimate) dont believe in climate change and the Pope makes no absolute choice, and Bishops are divided.
I believe that if I am undecided and feel a turn within my stomach on the issue, I dont want to have the risk of being immoral in Gods eye…
This is not a moral issue. Its political.
 
TEPO said:
This is not a moral issue. Its political.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think it is a moral issue. But only in the sense of how we effect the environment with our actions. Whether Global Warming is real or not, the fact remains that many of the practices of industrialization and also consumerism are having a negative impact upon the environment. So, even if it turns out that it is not real, it is a useful tool in alerting people that some changes need to be made in regards to how we are taking care off the gifts God has given us. Which may be the reason that when the Vatican speaks out on the subject they have stopped using the term “Global Warming” and prefer instead “climate change”.
 
Bill_Cherry said:
To be fair, I think it is a moral issue. But only in the sense of how we effect the environment with our actions. Whether Global Warming is real or not, the fact remains that many of the practices of industrialization and also consumerism are having a negative impact upon the environment. So, even if it turns out that it is not real, it is a useful tool in alerting people that some changes need to be made in regards to how we are taking care off the gifts God has given us. Which may be the reason that when the Vatican speaks out on the subject they have stopped using the term “Global Warming” and prefer instead “climate change”.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’ve always made it clear that I would be willing to meet in the middle, but I have trouble accepting the idea of throwing a monkey wrench in wheels of the American economy, which is what many feel Cap and trade will end up being. I believe the damages will exceed the benefits. All parties, disruptive or not, should be allowed to voice their opinion. Any attempt to shush them up or exclude them is cause for question. We need accurate numbers, dates, and calculations. Not from the elites but from everyone. We need truth.
 
TEPO said:
I agree. I’ve always made it clear that I would be willing to meet in the middle, but I have trouble accepting the idea of throwing a monkey wrench in wheels of the American economy, which is what many feel Cap and trade will end up being. I believe the damages will exceed the benefits. All parties, disruptive or not, should be allowed to voice their opinion. Any attempt to shush them up or exclude them is cause for question. We need accurate numbers, dates, and calculations. Not from the elites but from everyone. We need truth.
Click to expand...
My wife just laughed and said ‘pollution is not a commodity!’ And she is right. How would that decrease the pollution anyway? Bob’s factory is way below John’s factory. So Bob sells John his (what are they called ‘clean air credits’?) When in essence it is Bob who just got paid to take John’s pollution.
 
Bill_Cherry said:
To be fair, I think it is a moral issue. But only in the sense of how we effect the environment with our actions.
Click to expand...
What makes our actions on climate change moral: the intent or the outcome?
Whether Global Warming is real or not, the fact remains that many of the practices of industrialization and also consumerism are having a negative impact upon the environment. So, even if it turns out that it is not real, it is a useful tool in alerting people that some changes need to be made in regards to how we are taking care off the gifts God has given us.
Click to expand...
This leans very far toward “the ends justify the means” reasoning. This is not about generic “caring for the environment”; it is a scientific question about the cause of the present warming trend … the one that ended a decade ago. Deception and dishonesty are not useful tools and the “climate change” debate is rife with it. I do agree, however, that whether man made global warming is real or not the people who are pushing for government mandated control will continue to push for it.
** Which may be the reason that when the Vatican speaks out on the subject they have stopped using the term “Global Warming” and prefer instead “climate change”.**
Click to expand...
I disagree; the term “climate change” seems very much a dodge around the fact that global warming has stopped, but the impetus behind the hysteria remains the same. It is quite disappointing that the Vatican has gotten involved in this but their involvement is totally irrelevant: whether or not man has contributed anything significant to past warming is a purely scientific question.

But I do want to stay on the question: how is this a moral issue? If you and I take opposite sides am I being immoral and if I’m not then where is the moral dilemma?

Ender
 
Ender said:
What makes our actions on climate change moral: the intent or the outcome?
This leans very far toward “the ends justify the means” reasoning. This is not about generic “caring for the environment”; it is a scientific question about the cause of the present warming trend … the one that ended a decade ago. Deception and dishonesty are not useful tools and the “climate change” debate is rife with it. I do agree, however, that whether man made global warming is real or not the people who are pushing for government mandated control will continue to push for it.

**I have to admit that similar thoughts arose when I was typing that But I went with it anyway. I was thinking of a passage wher Paul said something similar But I can’t recall it. **

I disagree; the term “climate change” seems very much a dodge around the fact that global warming has stopped, but the impetus behind the hysteria remains the same. It is quite disappointing that the Vatican has gotten involved in this but their involvement is totally irrelevant: whether or not man has contributed anything significant to past warming is a purely scientific question.
Click to expand...
So, it is a matter of semantics. The evidence went from extreme warming to an impending ice age and then back to extreme warming. It has been shown that these fluctuations in the global climate are a natural phenomena. It has also been shown that the fluctuations are becoming more extreme each time. So, in effect, as the pendulum swings, there will be a time when it will either be another ice age or it will be so hot everything is basically cooked. It is like the arc of the pendulum is growing each time. At some time one or the other will predominate for an extended period of time until the pendulum begins to swing the other way again. So, climate change may be the best choice of words.
But I do want to stay on the question: how is this a moral issue? If you and I take opposite sides am I being immoral and if I’m not then where is the moral dilemma?
Click to expand...
Ender
Click to expand...
It becomes a moral issue when it effects everybody. If it effected only me and not you then there would only be my subjective moral issue with it. But, it is effecting everybody. This has been proven.
 
Bill_Cherry said:
It becomes a moral issue when it effects everybody. If it effected only me and not you then there would only be my subjective moral issue with it. But, it is effecting everybody. This has been proven.
Click to expand...
Actions may be moral or immoral depending on the nature of the act, the intent, and the circumstances. The circumstances mitigate our responsibility but don’t change the moral judgment. If the nature of the act is not intrinsically evil then the sole thing that determines the morality of an action is the intention behind it, and the effect, be it on one person or the entire universe, is irrelevant.

Abortion is intrinsically evil, therefore, regardless of the intent, any action that uses, permits, or supports abortion is evil and therefore this is a moral issue. “Climate change” is not a question of intrinsic evil and is therefore not a moral issue. If I bring you an apple out of generosity that is a moral act; if I bring you one hoping you will choke on it that is an immoral act but “bringing apples” is not a moral issue. Likewise, climate change is not a moral issue since no action on my part can be considered immoral unless you know my intent because in this case it is the intent behind the act and not the act itself that determines its morality. If the subject of the act is not intrinsically evil, whether it be climate change or bringing apples, then it is morally neutral and therefore it is incorrect to say climate change is a moral issue.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Actions may be moral or immoral depending on the nature of the act, the intent, and the circumstances. …Edited for brevity… then it is morally neutral and therefore it is incorrect to say climate change is a moral issue.
Ender
Click to expand...
I follow your line of reasoning. Perhaps I would be better in saying it is then an issue of “ethics”. Being that it is categorically imperative that measures be taken to eliminate, as best we can, the contribution we make, as individuals, to the over all pollution of our environment.
 
Part of this thread is about the “poor”.

Well, taking money from the workers to give to the poor isn’t going to help the poor very much [although it will enrich the people in the government who are enforcing the program] and it will create more poor people as the workers lose their income.

BUT, if someone is really concerned about improving the lot of the “poor”, consider getting the “poor” to do three things:
  1. graduate from high school
  2. don’t have children until after they marry
  3. take a job, any job, and work up from there.
 
The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature.
Click to expand...
It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current ‘green’ movement, as we know, is no exception. It has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform, sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun; usually a subtle mixture of the two. It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism’s sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit.
Click to expand...
I’m not the only one who sees green as the new color of statism
 
Bill_Cherry said:
I follow your line of reasoning. Perhaps I would be better in saying it is then an issue of “ethics”. Being that it is categorically imperative that measures be taken to eliminate, as best we can, the contribution we make, as individuals, to the over all pollution of our environment.
Click to expand...
Well you’ve changed the topic; we started off talking about climate change and now you’ve slipped into a discussion of pollution. I keep trying to nail you down but you keep shifting the target. Ethics is a system of moral values; morality is the application of the system to a specific situation. I don’t know that the term ethics makes your task any easier.

This is one of the points I’m trying to make: most issues do not involve moral choices; they are simply prudential. The usual dilemma is determining what works versus what doesn’t and it simply a mistake to believe that this has anything to do with morality.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Well you’ve changed the topic; we started off talking about climate change and now you’ve slipped into a discussion of pollution. I keep trying to nail you down but you keep shifting the target. Ethics is a system of moral values; morality is the application of the system to a specific situation. I don’t know that the term ethics makes your task any easier.

This is one of the points I’m trying to make: most issues do not involve moral choices; they are simply prudential. The usual dilemma is determining what works versus what doesn’t and it simply a mistake to believe that this has anything to do with morality.

Ender
Click to expand...
I think that it has been shown that pollution contributes to climate change. Since climate change has been shown to effect everyone, is lessening ones personal impact not then the ethical/moral thing to do?
 
Al_Masetti said:
“Watermelons” = green on the outside and red on the inside.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the environmental movement became a haven for apologists for the Soviet Union in particular and for Communism in particular.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the significance of the comparison. The implication is that responsible behavior leads to communism/fascism. That is a bated comparison which serves only to paint the issue at hand as evil. It, in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is as absurd as saying, vegans eat hummus. Al Quaida eats hummus. Therfore vegans are terrorists. Jesus more than likely ate hummus. Does that make Jesus a terrorist? The comparison is absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top