Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Bill_Cherry]

Always good to know the history of the enemy.

Save-the-planet inevitably leads to the policy of eugenics. Is that what some of you want?

**It doesn’t have to lead to eugenics. Both political “sides” have a few good things to offer, and both have things that are just plain wrong. The ‘trick’, I think, is to find the balance that is in accord with our faith. And not just the ranting of the parrots who unwittingly say the things that either the conservative or liberal media tells us to. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has always been and always will be at odds/enmity with ‘the world’. **

 

[4elise]

**It doesn’t have to lead to eugenics. Both political “sides” have a few good things to offer, and both have things that are just plain wrong. The ‘trick’, I think, is to find the balance that is in accord with our faith. And not just the ranting of the parrots who unwittingly say the things that either the conservative or liberal media tells us to. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has always been and always will be at odds/enmity with ‘the world’. **

I think you’ve got that right - Catholicism is the counter in the culture! Care about the unborn, care about the environment, care about the poor, and make choices that reflect all this and more!

 

[TEPO]

I dont watch t.v. or see much media. I prefer reading books. I will continue to care for the environment. I conserve water, energy, and prefer seeing flowers to picking them. I care about the poor and their human rights. I dont really know if I am conservative or libreral but I will say that I dont believe in man made climate change. It is Satan made. That is, made-up.

 

[4elise]

I dont watch t.v. or see much media. I prefer reading books. I will continue to care for the environment. I conserve water, energy, and prefer seeing flowers to picking them. I care about the poor and their human rights. I dont really know if I am conservative or libreral but I will say that I dont believe in man made climate change. It is Satan made. That is, made-up.

Wow… that is a strong statement.
Why do you believe Satan would make up the issue of man made climate change?

What if Satan is causing people to believe it isn’t happening, so we won’t take care of creation?

 

[TEPO]

Wow… that is a strong statement.
Why do you believe Satan would make up the issue of man made climate change?

What if Satan is causing people to believe it isn’t happening, so we won’t take care of creation?

It’s not really that strong of a statement. I think it’s made up, and you believe in it wholeheartedly. We can both have our opinions based on the information presented.
I guess, I am just --one of those people-- who dont base my life and beliefs on facts or proven information. I believe in the unseen also.

What makes you think you are right over me, especially when there is good information backing-up both sides? I just dont think God would allow something like this.

 

[Ender]

I do believe it is a moral issue if I believe my actions will hurt others and I do it anyway.

Every problem presents us with the choice of behaving morally by trying to help or immorally through indifference, greed, etc, but in most cases there is nothing specific to the issue that affects the morality of our actions; the morality of our actions is entirely determined by ourselves. Problems are not moral issues, they are simply problems; it is our response to them that determines morality, not something intrinsic to the problem.

If you feel that the use of the term ‘moral’ is being misused here - what would you see replace it? I must act in a way that I believe reflects what I have learned for the common good - and this compels me to act - **I believe this is a moral duty for ME **

Your statement is valid regardless of the issue; there is nothing here that distinguishes one problem from another. What is wrong here is that the issue (in most cases) provides no moral content at all. You are conflating your obligation to act morally with the issue that presents you with the challenge to meet that obligation. The moral aspect arises totally from your obligation; the problem you are trying to solve is morally neutral.

A man lives in a trailer park on the beach with his wife who is nine months pregnant, his invalid 95 year old grandmother, and his twin two year old sons. A category five hurricane will hit exactly where he is in 24 hours. The man has a moral duty to act for the common good and evacuate his family but that doesn’t make the hurricane a moral issue; it is simply a problem he has a moral obligation to try to resolve. Climate change is no more a moral issue than the hurricane; they are both merely problems we have a moral obligation to try to resolve.

I have never claimed that we have no moral obligation here but the morality lies entirely in the obligation, not in the problem itself.

Ender

 

[JimG]

Eugenics is not something I support. In fact I support sacrifice that will help sustain life on remote islands in the Pacific, that will help farmers in Asia and Africa and elsewhere, preserve natural habitats in Latin America for indigenous peoples - I support action that works against man made climate change to help PEOPLE LIVE FULL LIVES

And yet, denying pacific islanders, Latin Americans, and Asian and African farmers the ability to industrialize, may have precisely the effect of keeping them in poverty.

As an ancillary consideration, destroying the oil business would destroy the economies of some oil exporting countries and harm the economies of many others. That wouldn’t help the poor, either in those countries or in the industrialized nations. Perhaps the Creator just intended for us to leave the oil in the ground, and never to industrialize.

 

[4elise]

And yet, denying pacific islanders, Latin Americans, and Asian and African farmers the ability to industrialize, may have precisely the effect of keeping them in poverty.

As an ancillary consideration, destroying the oil business would destroy the economies of some oil exporting countries and harm the economies of many others. That wouldn’t help the poor, either in those countries or in the industrialized nations. Perhaps the Creator just intended for us to leave the oil in the ground, and never to industrialize.

That is certainly something to be considered - sustainable development is the answer, and something very much supported by the Church, while rampant industralzation with disregards the environment in favor of profits is strongly spoken against.

Again, the comments about the oil industry was not to suggest that the industry be destroyed, but rather that responsible corporate actions be supported.

Also, please realize that the post you are replying to - was a reply to an assertion that to believe and act to try to end climate change was the support of eugenics. An assertion that I disagree with.

 

[4elise]

It’s not really that strong of a statement. I think it’s made up, and you believe in it wholeheartedly. We can both have our opinions based on the information presented.
I guess, I am just --one of those people-- who dont base my life and beliefs on facts or proven information. I believe in the unseen also.

What makes you think you are right over me, especially when there is good information backing-up both sides? I just dont think God would allow something like this.

I too believe in the unseen - no doubting Thomas here!

I also haven’t seen first hand the melting glaciers, or the expanding deserts - yet I do believe those who report it and that man made climate change is having an impact - and as a result I am compelled to take action that reflects that belief.

It isn’t that I believe I am right over you - from the numerous posts that I and others have shared, both from those involved in the science, and the perspective of the Church - I believe that climate change is real - and that there are man made factors that contribute to it - therefore we can make changes in our lives that can have a positive impact as well.

It is very important, I believe, to ‘consider the source’ - are they qualified to give speak about the science? I have posted many, and will be happy to share them with you again that support this.

And FYI it isn’t God ‘allowing’ this - it is our action that is causing it… A excelent post earlier today addressed this VERY thing:

Contarini:

No one is saying that. Our existence is not the problem. Our sinful behavior is the problem. Rev. 11:18 speaks of God “destroying those who destroy the earth” by their sin. In fact, that’s the theme of much of that book–God’s judgment on human sin taking the form of what could be described as ecological catastrophes in large part. Of course I know that a literal approach to apocalyptic literature is misguided. I am not claiming that Revelation is necessarily talking about ecological catastrophe. But there is certainly nothing about Revelation’s account, or the teaching of Scripture and Christian tradition more generally, that is incompatible with our sin bringing about such a catastrophe.

Furthermore, I think that the outright “destruction of the earth” is relatively unlikely. What’s a lot more likely is that human beings (and other living creatures) will endure great suffering because of our wanton exploitation of God’s good creation. And again, that is very much in keeping with the message of Scripture warning of God’s judgments.

Edwin

Why do you think you believe it isn’t so? Is it because you value the opinion of those who say it isn’t so, or could it be because ***if you did believe it, you might have to make changes in your own life? ***

 

[4elise]

Every problem presents us with the choice of behaving morally by trying to help or immorally through indifference, greed, etc, but in most cases there is nothing specific to the issue that affects the morality of our actions; the morality of our actions is entirely determined by ourselves. Problems are not moral issues, they are simply problems; it is our response to them that determines morality, not something intrinsic to the problem.

Your statement is valid regardless of the issue; there is nothing here that distinguishes one problem from another. What is wrong here is that the issue (in most cases) provides no moral content at all. You are conflating your obligation to act morally with the issue that presents you with the challenge to meet that obligation. The moral aspect arises totally from your obligation; the problem you are trying to solve is morally neutral.

I do understand your point - and do not think I have ever said otherwise - so, gee, we agree it is our actions, or lack of actions, in response to a problem that determines morality or immorality.

A man lives in a trailer park on the beach with his wife who is nine months pregnant, his invalid 95 year old grandmother, and his twin two year old sons. A category five hurricane will hit exactly where he is in 24 hours. The man has a moral duty to act for the common good and evacuate his family but that doesn’t make the hurricane a moral issue; it is simply a problem he has a moral obligation to try to resolve. Climate change is no more a moral issue than the hurricane; they are both merely problems we have a moral obligation to try to resolve.

I have never claimed that we have no moral obligation here but the morality lies entirely in the obligation, not in the problem itself.

Ender

Again - I think on where the moral obligation lies - in action - we completely agree.

But, continuing with your assertion - if the man could take action that could mitigate the impact of the hurricane would he be morally obligated to take that action?

 

[Ender]

But, continuing with your assertion - if the man could take action that could mitigate the impact of the hurricane would he be morally obligated to take that action?

If a problem exists that adversely affects someone and we have the ability to mitigate the harmful effects we have the moral obligation to do so. In most cases this means choosing between any number of prudential options, taking the one that makes the most sense. Assuming that the intent is to resolve the problem, any choice is acceptable and inasmuch as the choices are prudential and not moral it cannot be said that the problem is moral. Our moral obligation is to try to do good but the means we choose are (usually) prudential.

I’ve been using the term “problem” because my comments apply to pretty much everything, from working to mitigate climate change, to helping kids with their homework, to opening a door for someone with his hands full. Each of them presents us with an opportunity to choose a moral response but none of them is a moral issue.

In contrast, abortion is a moral issue because the morality of actions in this area is not determined by intent, as it is with prudential problems, but by the intrinsic moral nature of the issue. That’s the difference between issues/problems that are moral and those that are morally neutral.

Ender

 

[TEPO]

I too believe in the unseen - no doubting Thomas here!

I also haven’t seen first hand the melting glaciers, or the expanding deserts - yet I do believe those who report it and that man made climate change is having an impact - and as a result I am compelled to take action that reflects that belief.

It isn’t that I believe I am right over you - from the numerous posts that I and others have shared, both from those involved in the science, and the perspective of the Church - I believe that climate change is real - and that there are man made factors that contribute to it - therefore we can make changes in our lives that can have a positive impact as well.

It is very important, I believe, to ‘consider the source’ - are they qualified to give speak about the science? I have posted many, and will be happy to share them with you again that support this.

And FYI it isn’t God ‘allowing’ this - it is our action that is causing it… A excelent post earlier today addressed this VERY thing:

Why do you think you believe it isn’t so? Is it because you value the opinion of those who say it isn’t so, or could it be because ***if you did believe it, you might have to make changes in your own life? ***

I do respect your efforts, and almost feel guilty for opposing you. Never the less, I will continue to try to explain my point of view. I feel it is necesarry, because if I feel it, others must too… Therefore, I make it MY moral obligation. If I am wrong, prove it. With all due respect.

A) **God has destroyed nations before. As depicted from Genesis 6:1-8. During the flood… **
“The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” —This is why God wiped out the Human race—

Three sins in general have been outlined in this website they are:

1. Marriage without maturity
2. Popularity without Piety
3. Thinking without truth

bible.ca/ef/expository-genesis-6-1-8.htm

B) God destroyed sodham and gommorah. As stated in Genesis chapters 18-19

The LORD also informed Abraham that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous.”

One sin in general is outlined for the annaihilation:

1. Homosexuality

So once again, mans wickedness (in the form of perversion) caused his destruction.

—So what sins has man committed today that are “so great” , or that our hearts pour out evil “all the time”…

Is it because we used the resources of the earth that God gave us? Or What???
If anything, our real problem stems from hollywood, divorce, abortion, euthenasia, and opression of peoples, etc…

 

[TEPO]

No one is saying that. Our existence is not the problem. Our sinful behavior is the problem. Rev. 11:18 speaks of God “destroying those who destroy the earth” by their sin. In fact, that’s the theme of much of that book–God’s judgment on human sin taking the form of what could be described as ecological catastrophes in large part. Of course I know that a literal approach to apocalyptic literature is misguided. I am not claiming that Revelation is necessarily talking about ecological catastrophe. But there is certainly nothing about Revelation’s account, or the teaching of Scripture and Christian tradition more generally, that is *incompatible *with our sin bringing about such a catastrophe.

Furthermore, I think that the outright “destruction of the earth” is relatively unlikely. What’s a lot more likely is that human beings (and other living creatures) will endure great suffering because of our wanton exploitation of God’s good creation. And again, that is very much in keeping with the message of Scripture warning of God’s judgments.

Edwin

—Please agree with me in saying that you think that “ecological destruction” is Gods punishment for our behavior. As opposed to “ecological destruction” being a grave human sin that will result in Gods wrath—

-4elise seems to think its the latter-

 

[4elise]

If a problem exists that adversely affects someone and we have the ability to mitigate the harmful effects we have the moral obligation to do so. In most cases this means choosing between any number of prudential options, taking the one that makes the most sense. Assuming that the intent is to resolve the problem, any choice is acceptable and inasmuch as the choices are prudential and not moral it cannot be said that the problem is moral. Our moral obligation is to try to do good but the means we choose are (usually) prudential.

I’ve been using the term “problem” because my comments apply to pretty much everything, from working to mitigate climate change, to helping kids with their homework, to opening a door for someone with his hands full. Each of them presents us with an opportunity to choose a moral response but none of them is a moral issue.

In contrast, abortion is a moral issue because the morality of actions in this area is not determined by intent, as it is with prudential problems, but by the intrinsic moral nature of the issue. That’s the difference between issues/problems that are moral and those that are morally neutral.

Ender

Here again, I find nothing to disagree with - it is the action / or inaction that is where the morality exists in relation to this discussion.

I am compelled to act personally, encourage others in the community, and speak out in favor of action that reflects this choice.

 

[4elise]

I do respect your efforts, and almost feel guilty for opposing you. Never the less, I will continue to try to explain my point of view. I feel it is necesarry, because if I feel it, others must too… Therefore, I make it MY moral obligation. If I am wrong, prove it. With all due respect.

Well - first I appreciate the respect, and respectful discussion. Since you have however stated that you do not base your opinion on facts…

I guess, I am just --one of those people-- who dont base my life and beliefs on facts or proven information.

*** … how could I prove anything to you? ***

A) God has destroyed nations before. As depicted from Genesis 6:1-8. During the flood… **
** "TheLord saw how great man’s wickedness

B) **God destroyed sodham and gommorah. **

The LORD also informed Abraham that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous.”

—**So what sins has man committed today that are “so great” **, or that our hearts pour out evil “all the time”…

Is it because we used the resources of the earth that God gave us? Or What???
If anything, our real problem stems from hollywood, divorce, abortion, euthenasia, and opression of peoples, etc…

TEPO, you have already come to the conclusion that it is through sin that we bring about destruction - and it is a great sin indeed to not care for a great gift, isn’t it?

God loves us so much that he created the entire Universe for us - yet greed has caused people to use this gift for their own gain, not for the good of all mankind - this is the choice - can we act in a way that will preserve this gift, ***even if this means making personal sacrifices, don’t you think? ***

 

[4elise]

—Please agree with me in saying that you think that “ecological destruction” is Gods punishment for our behavior. As opposed to “ecological destruction” being a grave human sin that will result in Gods wrath—

-4elise seems to think its the latter-

Sorry - I know you weren’t asking me…
But there is a cause and effect issue - our actions, not caring for creation = cause problems,

And one can argue that it is just the actions that cause the effect, or that the actions bring God’s wrath - either way we must do something, right?

 

[TEPO]

God loves us so much that he created the entire Universe for us - yet greed has caused people to use this gift for their own gain, not for the good of all mankind - this is the choice - can we act in a way that will preserve this gift, ***even if this means making personal sacrifices, don’t you think? ***

I agree, God loves us and has created the universe for us. But please, love your neighbor. Love your enemy. I think you are being consumed by the issue of environment.
–first of all, lets forgive everyone who has hurt the earth.
–secondly, lets understand that humanity has done its best to not be greedy, but to help all of mankind.

I have trouble convincing myself that very many people at all have ‘used’ the earth for gain. At least anymore than God intended. Actually, the only ones who have are the billion dollar elites who are the same people pushing the doomsday environmental “MMCC” issue. The rest of humanity (the 99.99%) are just going with the flow.
Is’nt it science and all of its inventions and innovations to “improve life” that have caused the problem. Now all of a sudden everyone is guilty of greed? If science cant lead the way without changing its mind every hundred years, then I’m tired of following its lead. I will put my trust in God. Honesty, Chastity, Love, Forgiveness, Charity, Mercy, etc…

 

[TEPO]

Sorry - I know you weren’t asking me…
But there is a cause and effect issue - our actions, not caring for creation = cause problems,

And one can argue that it is just the actions that cause the effect, or that the actions bring God’s wrath - either way we must do something, right?

The thing is I do care for Gods creation and am protecting the earth. I just dont trust science anymore because of its foolish mistakes and evil intentions. So we should pray, not only for God to keep His earth orderly, but for repentance and conversion. God is the only way if you want to live. There is no other way.

 

[4elise]

I agree, God loves us and has created the universe for us. **But please, love your neighbor. Love your enemy. I think you are being consumed by the issue of environment. **
–first of all, lets forgive everyone who has hurt the earth.
–secondly, lets understand that humanity has done its best to not be greedy, but to help all of mankind.

Ok, my friend - I am not going to think you are saying **that by being concerned about this, someone doesn’t love neighbor or enemy ** o— but you have to know that is how that sounded

** Someone who wants to be forgiven, need only seek it from our God of endless Mercy

** And if you think humanity has done it’s best not to be greedy - you are more naive than me -* ** and I have friends who would think that such a thing is completely impossible!** *

I am sure someone could consider any thread that someone follows as being ‘consuming’ however this is just something I write about here on CAF because I believe that as Catholics we have a unique opportunity to speak out on this and other important issues - and I wanted to share here at CAF information from the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change catholicsandclimatechange.org/

I have trouble convincing myself that very many people at all have ‘used’ the earth for gain. At least anymore than God intended.

God does NOT intend us - or anyone else - to hurt His precious creation. Yet… sadly this happens because people put themselves ahead of others, and their needs first.

Actually, the only ones who have are the billion dollar elites who are the same people pushing the doomsday environmental “MMCC” issue. The rest of humanity (the 99.99%) are just going with the flow.
Is’nt it science and all of its inventions and innovations to “improve life” that have caused the problem. Now all of a sudden everyone is guilty of greed? If science cant lead the way without changing its mind every hundred years, then I’m tired of following its lead. I will put my trust in God. Honesty, Chastity, Love, Forgiveness, Charity, Mercy, etc…

**HERE is where I would like to ask you to consider something PLEASE ---- the billion dollar corporations - that do not want any changes made that will impact the money they make TODAY - are working very hard to get the 99.99% of those going with the flow to not be open to making the changes necessary to address this VERY important issue. **

Now - I say this in honesty, charity, and love - your posts on this thread have been a challenge to respond to because I feel like you don’t read what you posted in a previous post - and it is really hard to follow with any kind of logical discussion - so dear one - I think I have addressed EVERY point you’ve brought up several times, and I am willing to keep doing so - but if you have already come to the conclusion that man made climate change is not real, and you don’t need to do anything about it - please go in peace and post on other threads - if you want to keep bringing up the same questions - again, I’ll be happy to answer them, ***but then PLEASE don’t accuse me of being consumed with the subject, OK? ***

 

[TEPO]

• so dear one - I think I have addressed EVERY point you’ve brought up several times, and I am willing to keep doing so - but if you have already come to the conclusion that man made climate change is not real, and you don’t need to do anything about it - please go in peace and post on other threads - if you want to keep bringing up the same questions - again, I’ll be happy to answer them, ***but then PLEASE don’t accuse me of being consumed with the subject, OK? ***

okay, I found someone else to pick on from another thread.
Re: Science and the Church: Physical Mathematical Sciences and Faith /
I will leave you alone for a while…:takeoff: