L
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You can also join in the efforts to reduce GHGs. Everyone is welcome.Nice one on…well I guess one conversation…
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
It seems many on the forum here would rather argue endlessly about the reality of climate change and its impact, than reflect on the Church’s actual teachnig regarding safeguarding the environment.:coffeeread:Nice one on…well I guess one conversation…
L
Lapey
Guest
You take yourself too seriously again. This was a joke about the fact that you asked a question, you answered it, then commented on your answer. That’s kind of weird, don’t you agree?
PS. I have joined in the environmental protection, good steward mode many years ago; along the lines of Church teaching. I just don’t accept MMGW, neither does recent science.
L
Lapey
Guest
You only see one aspect of Church teaching and use it for your own liberal agenda. I disagree with this.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Could you expand on this? Is this Catholic thought?
There’s two reasons I ask:
I have a Catholic friend that’s getting way too into the ecological movement and from where I sit it’s eating into her devotion. I’d like her to go back to her Catholic pew and hear the Gospel and receive the Sacraments.
The second reason, is that Lutherans tend to reject this - if we were to use nature as a model for God, we would have no hope for the salvation or even resurrection. The ‘god of nature’ eat’s it’s young and will let you die a miserable hopeless death, with your rotting corpse your only projection into the future.
Thanks in advance!
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Thanks for asking. We can start with this reflection from the Compendium:
The faith of Israel is lived out in the space and time of this world, perceived not as a hostile environment, nor as an evil from which one must be freed, but rather as the gift itself of God, as the place and plan that he entrusts to the responsible management and activity of man. Nature, the work of God’s creative action, is not a dangerous adversary. It is God who made all things, and with regard to each created reality “God saw that it was good” (cf. Gen 1:4,10,12,18,21,25). At the summit of this creation, which “was very good” (Gen 1:31), God placed man. Only man and woman, among all creatures, were made by God “in his own image” (Gen 1,27). The Lord entrusted all of creation to their responsibility, charging them to care for its harmony and development (cf. Gen 1:26-30). This special bond with God explains the privileged position of the first human couple in the order of creation.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#II. MAN AND THE UNIVERSE OF CREATED THINGS
Creation is “good” it is a gift. I especialy like Waht St Bonaventure has to say in *The Soul’s Journey into God:*CHAPTER TWO
OF THE REFLECTION OF GOD IN HIS TRACES IN THE SENSIBLE WORLD
12. The creatures of this sensible world signify the invisible things of
God [Rom., 1, 20], partly because God is of all creation the origin,
exemplar, and end, and because every effect is the sign of its cause, the
exemplification of the exemplar, and the way to the end to which it leads;
partly from its proper representation; partly from prophetic prefiguration;
partly from angelic operation; partly from further ordination. For every
creature is by nature a sort of picture and likeness of that eternal
wisdom, but especially that which in the book of Scripture is elevated by
the spirit of prophecy to the prefiguration of spiritual things. But more
does the eternal wisdom appear in those creatures in whose likeness God
wished to appear in angelic ministry. And most specially does it appear in
those which He wished to institute for the purpose of signifying which are
not only signs according to their common name but also Sacraments.
- From all this it follows that the invisible things of God are clearly
seen, from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that
are made; so that those who are unwilling to give heed to them and to know
God in them all, to bless Him and to love Him, are inexcusable [Rom., 1,
20], while they are unwilling to be carried forth from the shadows into the
wonderful light of God *. But thanks be to God through Jesus
Christ our Lord, Who has transported us out of darkness into His wonderful
light, when through these lights given from without we are disposed to re-
enter into the mirror of our mind, in which the divine lights shine *
B
benjohnson
Guest
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I am not sure about the Luterans. I imagine with them there is also a divide on the subject. But as for your friend I think this speaks well:
- The attitude that must characterize the way man acts in relation to creation is essentially one of gratitude and appreciation; the world, in fact, reveals the mystery of God who created and sustains it. If the relationship with God is placed aside, nature is stripped of its profound meaning and impoverished. If on the other hand, nature is rediscovered in its creaturely dimension, channels of communication with it can be established, its rich and symbolic meaning can be understood, allowing us to enter into its realm of mystery. This realm opens the path of man to God, Creator of heaven and earth. The world presents itself before man’s eyes as evidence of God, the place where his creative, providential and redemptive power unfolds.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Quite the opposite. I have no interest in a left or right agenda. The teaching comes first. That is why I often site the bishops or the Vatican.
But here you pick a fight again and I will not reciprocate. What reflection do you have to offer on chapter 10 of the Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church: Safeguarding the Environment? That is what I hoped this thread would be about. If you still want to argue you can go back to the Obama Plan thread.
I thought benjohnson asked a very good question and I would like to hear your thoughts on it also.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
From what I understand ALL the major religions share in the ideal of creation care and protection, even Islam. It’s just these anti-Church, pro-Enlightenment-thinking “Catholics” and others claiming to be of some mainstream religion that are against it, or feel no need for it aside from maybe cleaning up litter or something.
In “A Crude Awakening,” a speaker makes the comment, “Oil has become our god. I don’t care what deity one says they worship – Yaweh, Allah, Buddha – what they really worhship is oil.”
It’s nearly impossible to get thru to those worshipping oil or addicted to oil. Have you ever tried to dissuade an alcoholic from drinking? It can happen…in a blue moon.
L
Lapey
Guest
I would love for you to elaborate on precisely who you speak of here; not names but be more specific on what “anti-Church, pro-Enlightenment-thinking “Catholics”” means and why?
Perspective is quite important, you say some worship oil, like an addict, some say others worship government and MMGW as a religion.
Please don’t ignore my posts like you typically do, it would be nice of you to make an effort to let us know who exactly you are talking about; especially with the use of the quotes to describe “Catholics”. You might want to check the forum rules in describing your fellow forum members especially those who call themselves Catholic.
L
Lapey
Guest
I think both we care about the environment, I know by your passion you do and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I care about the earth’s future; to say otherwise or believe otherwise would be self defeating, wouldn’t it?
What we are missing is balance. Everything we do in life must be in balance. Some exist that don’t care about anything but profit and success and may not care about harm to future generations. I concede this point. But there are also some on the other extreme that would completely end industry all in the name of MMGW. Somehow we need to see we have to enact balanced legislation and regulation.
People need to be able to provide for their families and live with dignity, this is Church teaching and it is Natural Law. This is not something that the USA discovered, it is a God given desire for people to survive with the dignity of children of God.
In the living out of our lives in the dignity we must insure that future generations have that same God given right, this is our common ground and this is where we can find balance.
Some of the regulations and legislation has robbed many of that dignity given to us by God’s Natural Law. Some of our freedoms have robbed many of their ability to live safely in a now tainted environment. I think we both can agree with this thought. Somewhere we have to find balance.
In another thread we talked about how industry has made tremendous strides in curtailing pollution, and CO2 emissions. We even had a discussion in particular about the corporation I work for and you even admitted how impressed you are about our company as being leaders in the industry. Remember, .51% of all CO2 emissions; right at half of one percent of CO2 of all sources combined. That is quite impressive.
So how do we live out what our bishops have stated about CC and remain open to the Faithfull’s ability to provide for a dignified life for their families? Balance, this is all I have been saying from the beginning of our discussions. At times I get a little too emotional in my responses and that has cost me a suspension here and I do apologize for those occasions when I get frustrated. But this does not change the need for balance.
Some would insist that the bishop’s statements and Vatican documents mean we must shut down almost completely the use of fossil fuels. What would this cause? It would cause poverty and eliminate the ability of many to live with dignity because so much of the world’s economy relies on these needed fuels. That is simply fact.
There are no sources of energy ready at this time in history to replace fossil fuels, true statement. We are making great strides in development of replacement/renewable energy sources, true statement. Shutting down entire industries like the coal industry does real harm to real people, true statement. Continuing to use “dirty coal” without innovative improvements on emissions will continue to pollute the air and water, true statement. Continuing to consider CO2 a pollutant and using regulation and law to “regulate” it will continue to cause real damage to the ability to live and provide for a families dignity and well being, true statement. Continuing to attack each other when someone believes differently on these issues will continue to diminish our ability to improve the environment, true statement. Continuing to appear to “tamper” with the scientific evidence in this area will continue to cause skeptics like me to remain skeptical, very true statement.
We’ve argued for way too long, and I am growing tired of the same thing over and over again. I concede you care about the environment and are following your conscience and your views of the bishop’s and Vatican’s directives and I ask you to do the same for me, because I surely am. Let’s work together on a balanced approach instead of insisting on extremes. Caring for the future cannot mean detrimental affects on the faithful who live now, this is against Catholic teachings and Natural Law; so is the opposite extreme, not doing anything to protect what God has given us and is expecting us to give the next generation an even better environment. Can we at least agree on these premises? I hope so; this seems to me to be common sense.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Yes, we can agree. We have been so accustomed to fossil fuel that an abrupt change is tantamount to cold turkey withdrawal. I think we might also be able to say that about several things in our country and in our world. The balance you speak of would seem required unless we are prepared to deal with the pains of withdrawal which the poor will certainly exprience more than anyone else, as always. But what does balance look like in practical act? It is all quite complex which is why I often default to our bishops’s position. We have come a long way with our air and water but a great cost. Do you think it has been worth it?
I apppreciate your change of tone and think we can have a more productive conversation here.
I apppreciate your change of tone and think we can have a more productive conversation here.
L
Lapey
Guest
My tone isn’t a real change. I’ve been saying these things from the beginning. But a few here see my resistance to believing the MMGW as a deal breaker which proves I am selfish and a mouthpiece for Republicans and/or the evil rich. I am not; I have always argued and debated on the side of real people in real pain because of the “cold turkey” approach you mention.
Others, especially Lynnvinc, have lashed out with terms like selfish and many others which cause an end of a conversation. You at times have joined in the rhetoric of bashing the dissenter. We have to stop this destructive talk.
As far as your questions, I think we are or at least we were on a balanced approach. We have recognized great strides to caring for the environment. What is the next step as you see it? I do not agree with President Obama’s approach. He is a “my way or the highway” kind of guy. He accepts no one’s opinion that differs from his own and I think he has done more polarizing on all issues than uniting. We are further away now than ever to compromise on any subject, including protecting the environment. I believe his demanding and using EPA for his agenda, coupled with the appearance of data manipulation by scientists and environmental groups have caused the balance approach to falter; and therefore separation and rhetoric.
I don’t see any change until President Obama changes his tone, he is the leader, it’s time for him to lead; from ahead.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I suppose the question for all of us is why do we resist or accept MMGW.
If it is true, then your concern for “the real people” must also take that risk for them into account.
Not for political reasons do I accept it. I have no allegience to Obama and did not vote for him. I go with the bishops who go with the majority scientific view. How to address it, what to do on the practical level is beyond my realm of expertise, so again I go with the bishops until something is compelling enough lead me otherwise. But my concern goes beyond MMGW to simple stewardship of the earth and what we do with our waste and toxins. Again the bishops have acted.
On April 30, 2007, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sponsored a conference, Protecting Human Life and Caring for Creation: Why Protecting Unborn Children in Their First Environment Matters. The conference brought together leading scientists and heads of Catholic organizations to examine the latest science on the impact of environmental toxins on unborn children.
old.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/case/studyguide.shtml
On that other thread someone actual said we do not have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged" or at least not more polluted and damageed than it already is. That boggles my mind.
L
Lapey
Guest
I can accept and agree with everything you say here, with one addition; my own attention to these events and mishandling of the studies and the data which is presented from the studies.
I believe that the bishop’s writings you continue to place in your posts are based on good intentions, but their foundations are set on the data which I do not trust. If we truly follow the bishops, none of us Catholics would have voted for Obama either time his name was on the ballot.
The balance comes in when we care about real people here and now, and into the future. We cannot continue hurting people in this time frame based ideas and theories of possible future doom. Both time frames must be reasonably discussed, the short term (my concern) and the long term (your concern). Even in these description we must both care for and protect both; this is what the bishops are saying.
S
Starrsmother
Guest
Some of us WERE smart enough to be able to say that we NEVER voted for Obama EITHER time his name was on the ballot—and I’m one of those folks!
D
DoGodsBidding
Guest
Me too!Some of us WERE smart enough to be able to say that we NEVER voted for Obama EITHER time his name was on the ballot—and I’m one of those folks!
L
Lapey
Guest
Some of us WERE smart enough to be able to say that we NEVER voted for Obama EITHER time his name was on the ballot—and I’m one of those folks!
Me THREE!
- Status