The moral voter: Bishop offers guidance to faithful Catholic voters

[Ender]

The issue is that you do not believe that Church leadership’s source of truth is valid…

When it comes to science the church has no special access to the truth. Science is the same for us all. Either you can defend the science of AGW or you can’t. You’ve claimed serious problems from global warming; would you care to defend some of them?

When it comes to global climate change, you are obviously in disagreement with the Church.

Oh my goodness. Can we at least recognize that disagreeing with opinions, even of the clergy, is not to disagree with the church?

What source are you using to state that their position is irrelevant? You seem to be unable to answer the source question, so is your claim that you have a special line to God?

Why on earth do you make an issue of this? I told you: I read. Do you know these people: Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Andrew Watt, Robert Lindzen, Hans von Storch, Christopher Landsea…?

 

[Feanor2]

You consider this a scientific observation do you?

ah just saw I had you confused with Buffalo who is always going on about his take on established science. You guys kind of post in the same style.

Sorry about that.

 

[umamibella]

Why do you keep posting this?

I just flagged it on all the threads this spammer is posting to.

 

[OneSheep]

it did nothing and very few have met their own self-imposed goals. it is just wealth distribution. allowing China and India to build new coal plants for 10 years does not show there is any urgency to the problem

I can see how you think that way, but the Church makes no doubt about the urgency. Yes, we need to make it more urgent. When it comes to negotiated agreements, perfection is not usually attainable.

how can it be immoral if the problem is nature itself?

To some degree you are right, because humans are natural, but the Church is acknowledging the scientific evidence that humans are exacerbating the problem of climate change, and that we need to work to reverse the damage as much as possible. Our own desire to address a threat to our well-being is natural.

the bible tells us we will not destroy the earth.

I don’t know where it says that, perhaps you could bring it forth. I do believe this though, because when humans realize that they are causing destruction, they realize they are hurting themselves, and the desire for survival kicks in. There are many examples of this in human history.

who can control the climate? not man, no matter what he does.

This is not the “science” behind what Church leadership acknowledges to be most accurate.

the church is not infallible when it comes to science. their own history proves this.

Perhaps you could cite an example where the Church has not used the best science available for social justice matters.

just curious
how were you able to reopen a 7-month-old thread?

It was a curious thing! I searched for “Catholic vote” and this thread came up, and it wasn’t closed. Rather than starting a new thread, I found it totally relevant and decided to post here.

This is not a moral issue because human lives are not being negatively affected by climate change, as I said earlier.

Well, you are not agreeing with either Pope Francis, John Paul II or Pope Benedict.
See chapter 1:

https://www.stfrancisraleigh.org/pope-francis-laudato-si-summaries/

If Pope Francis is a “radical” environmentalist, what was Pope Benedict XVI? – Catholic World Report

If you’d like to debate the science involved I’m willing to participate. You do understand the science, right?

I don’t need to debate the science involved. I agree with the science behind the Church’s encyclical. I would like to know what your sources are.

Just present your source for what you see as truth. If you don’t have a source, let’s just call it quits.

 

[OneSheep]

When it comes to science the church has no special access to the truth.

The leaders of the Church prayerfully consider all the sources. It is a large group of people who are responsible for the well-being of the faithful, of all people, and they prayerfully consider the science. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, but you are saying that the Spirit is on your side, saying “the leadership has no special access” and/or you are saying the Spirit is on your side, saying that you are correct and they are not, unless you are saying something different, please clarify.

Who are you suggesting the faithful believe? You, or the Pope? One of your favorite deniers?

Can we at least recognize that disagreeing with opinions, even of the clergy, is not to disagree with the church?

You are disagreeing with the encyclical and the Church leadership, and yes, the majority of the Church membership, as it generally follows the global populace. So, if you are not disagreeing with the Church, what is your definition of Church?

What source are you using to state that their position is irrelevant? You seem to be unable to answer the source question, so is your claim that you have a special line to God?

Present one source, one source that you believe in, and we can evaluate it against the facts. In the mean time, have you seen this?:
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming

Keep in mind that there are scientists who believed that HIV did not cause AIDS, and many scientists also denied the link between smoking and lung cancer.

No. The simple fact that an act harms someone does not make it immoral. If I anticipate the harm and do it then it is a sin, but if I do it expecting a good result it is not; it is at worst a mistake.

Well, given that the vast majority of climatologists see that climate change is happening and humans are adding to the problems, this does involve some careful self-examination. Try to imagine slave holders examining their own ideas concerning the science behind their choices. Their “science” justified great harm, and they stubbornly continued to deny the injustice. Does acknowledging the truth presented by most climatologists harm you economically? If so, “harm” takes on a different meaning for you.

 

[Ender]

you are saying that the Spirit is on your side…

This is a rather stunning misreading of everything I’ve said. The Spirit is not a guide in matters of science, to me or anyone else.

Who are you suggesting the faithful believe?

Science is not a matter of faith; its truths are available equally to everyone.

You are disagreeing with the encyclical and the Church leadership…

I am disagreeing with an opinion about a matter of science, not a matter of faith or morals.

Present one source, one source that you believe in, and we can evaluate it against the facts. In the mean time, have you seen this?

Wait - did you just cite a non-church source? Why is this justifiable for you but not for me? If you can make a judgment about the validity of one position relative to another why do you raise such an objection when I do the same thing?

And what “facts” are you referring to? Are these church facts, because if they are not then am I not as justified in interpreting them as you? And if you present me with facts then you have left the realm of faith and your objection to my making judgments about the science is repudiated by your own argument.

Well, given that the vast majority of climatologists see that climate change is happening and humans are adding to the problems…

How do you know this? Is this an article of faith, because if not is it not legitimate for me to contest it?

 

[OneSheep]

The Spirit is not a guide in matters of science, to me or anyone else.

Again, please provide a source that says the Spirit does not guide the Church in terms of what is the most accurate science. If you can’t provide a source, please drop it.

Science is not a matter of faith; its truths are available equally to everyone.

I agree that science is not a matter of faith, at least to some degree, but we do believe that Catholic leadership is guided by the Spirit in terms of what is accurate science.

Wait - did you just cite a non-church source?

Yes, the Church has very few scientists, and it is not their place to do climatology. They look at all sources and determine, through prayer and their own observation, what appears to be the most accurate science.

why do you raise such an objection when I do the same thing?

You have not done “the same thing”. You have yet to present an online source for your opinions.

Well, given that the vast majority of climatologists see that climate change is happening and humans are adding to the problems…

I have looked at the evidence and the conclusions made by scientists. I trust the majority of scientists who agree with the findings, and I have found those who assert the opposite either untrustworthy or failing to stand up to critique, as have Church leaders.

Again, please present a source. I have been very patient with you, and I even presented a source when you did not ask for one. I have asked several times on every one of my posts, and you have come up with nothing that I can read and comment on.

Just one source, Ender, one. You can do this.

 

[Motherwit]

When it comes to science the church has no special access to the truth.

Yes she does in the form of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which independently informs the Church regarding these issues.

Signs that we are getting to the last stop before irreversibly affecting terrestrial climate are becoming more numerous and stronger[5]. Voices that argue about the fact that we, the humans, are not responsible for climate change are challenged more and more convincingly by scientific proofs and facts. In preparation of the COP 24 UN Climate Summit in Katowice (Poland, December 2018), this meeting sets the ground for a final call toward immediate and strong actions to curb global warming and the consequent climate change negatively affecting humans and the environment. We are the last generation that can stop climate change before it causes irreversible change to our planet. Time is almost over and action must be taken immediately, by all, worldwide. But hope remains that: “Humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home . . . Truly, much can be done!

http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/events/2018/climatechange2018.html

You can argue that these eminent science sources are just opinions, but I accept them as credible sources.

 

[pnewton]

From my point of view? Yes, I agree with him on that one point. The value of saving lives is more important that contraception, in the sense that abortion is more important than contraception. Besides, we will not outlaw contraception, or prevent the federal government from providing it in some cases. Whereas polluting is something that one person may have more effect than another.

Abortion is still the biggie, numero uno.

 

[Ender]

Again, please provide a source that says the Spirit does not guide the Church in terms of what is the most accurate science. If you can’t provide a source, please drop it.

No, I won’t drop it. You made the assertion; you back it up. Show us where the church says the Spirit guides it in matters of science.

Yes, the Church has very few scientists, and it is not their place to do climatology. They look at all sources and determine, through prayer and their own observation, what appears to be the most accurate science.

That’s all that I’m doing: determining for myself what appears to be the most accurate science. Something we are all justified in doing.

You have yet to present an online source for your opinions.

Tell you what: you make any claim about any aspect of global warming and we can discuss it using “my sources” against yours. Do you believe droughts are increasing? Hurricanes? That 97% of climate scientists believe AGW? Pick something and let’s see where it goes.

Again, please present a source. I have been very patient with you, and I even presented a source when you did not ask for one. I have asked several times on every one of my posts, and you have come up with nothing that I can read and comment on.

How about NOAA. Does this meet your criteria?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.html

Yes she does in the form of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which independently informs the Church regarding these issues.

Really? We expect the Pontifical Academy to be the leaders in the study of global warming?

You can argue that these eminent science sources are just opinions, but I accept them as credible sources.

An eminent scientist is a credible source, but his credibility depends entirely on his scientific acumen, and not at all on his position within the church.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Yes she does in the form of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which independently informs the Church regarding these issues.

Really? We expect the Pontifical Academy to be the leaders in the study of global warming?

You can argue that these eminent science sources are just opinions, but I accept them as credible sources.

An eminent scientist is a credible source, but his credibility depends entirely on his scientific acumen, and not at all on his position within the church.

There’s plenty of them to choose from.

Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

These have included Nobel Laureates.

 

[Mydogisagoofball]

How does a person ask a question on here? Sorry to jump into this topic but I don’t know where else to go. I got interested in this website because I have questions about Catholicism. Yes I am a Catholic who went to Catholic school for 13 years inc. K but there is still so much I don’t know and don’t know where to find out. Not about this particular topic but all kinds of things, like stuff in the Bible for instance. Obviously people ask questions on here. Where is that part of your website? Thank you.

 

[stpurl]

We used to have Ask An Apologist but that feature no longer exists.

What you do, if you have a question, is ask it in the appropriate forum. If you have a Bible question, go to Sacred Scriptures; if it’s about something ‘in the news” there is either World News or strictly Catholic news; if it’s about something you heard or saw at Mass go to Liturgy and Sacraments, if it’s about general stuff such as parenting that’s under Catholic living. There are funny ‘casual’ things like post a cartoon, etc. If you’re not sure, post it where you think it should go and mention you aren’t sure, and somebody will help put it in the proper forum.

There aren’t exactly ‘resident priests’ but if you have a question that needs specific priestly knowledge and isn’t some personal, “Father tell me if X is a sin” (which you should ask your own priest), just mention in your post you’d like to hear a priest’s take and somebody will @ to a priest (or deacon) who regularly visit the site and if they can, they will answer.

Also remember (as a fellow went through Catholic schools and Catholic college person here) that “A little learning is a dangerous thing’ and often what we may have been taught or understood can be erroneous —not necessarily through deliberation, or defect in our teachers or ourselves, but from circumstance. Nobody ever died here (that I know of) from finding out they were wrong and apologising for same, and nobody is ever right all the time (unless they only speak of infallible things and just ‘quote them’ and that hasn’t happened yet either). Some of us are more right than others, some are more in error, few deliberately so; some are very earnest, others sardonic; some long-winded, others terse, we’re a motley crew but God, thankfully, can and does use us as HE sees fit.

 

[upant]

When it comes to negotiated agreements, perfection is not usually attainable

this is simply a wealth distribution scheme which will harm the planet if you are concerned about CO2. the church being in favor of it doesn’t eliminate the harm the accord is doing

the Church is acknowledging the scientific evidence that humans are exacerbating the problem of climate change,

what exactly does the church think mankind is doing wrong and what documentation have they presented to back up their findings? Let’s see the scientific proof this judgment is based on. please be specific.

I don’t know where it says that,

Matthew is very clear, man will be going on as usual when Jesus returns.

Matthew 24:37-39 ESV / 71
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

This is not the “science” behind what Church leadership acknowledges to be most accurate.

please enlighten me, the best say no matter what man does we won’t meet the supposed needed goal. why? because it is a natural event.

Perhaps you could cite an example where the Church has not used the best science available for social justice matters.

perhaps you can show me where the church claims infallibility in the realm of science. the earth/sun issue from Gallielo seems evident enough

 

[upant]

we do believe that Catholic leadership is guided by the Spirit in terms of what is accurate science.

where does it say this, you can’t ask for a source without providing your own. infallibility is limited to specific items and science is not one of them.

what appears to be the most accurate science.

you changed from “what is” to “now appears to be most accurate”. appearances can be wrong.

Well, given that the vast majority of climatologists see that climate change is happening and humans are adding to the problems…

yes climate change is happening, but the cause is not a settled debate

You can argue that these eminent science sources are just opinions, but I accept them as credible sources.

are they infallible?

 

[Ender]

yes climate change is happening, but the cause is not a settled debate

I’m with you on this. The claim that “the vast majority of climatologists” believe man is adding to the climate change problem is not something I would ever say. What I would say first is that such a claim is technically true even as it implies much more than it could legitimately claim. It is equally true - and equally meaningless - that throwing a spoonful of water into a pool already overfull also adds to the problem.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

You can argue that these eminent science sources are just opinions, but I accept them as credible sources.

are they infallible?

That was never a distinction that lay people were meant to mull on as we are guided by the Church.

 

[Mydogisagoofball]

Thank you. I will. I’m probably the only person on earth who takes notes during the homily. I always want to know something.

 

[upant]

That was never a distinction that lay people were meant to mull on as we are guided by the Church.

Nonsense, the popes say We can disagree with them on items

edit to add a quote

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the -application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” (WRHC 3). WRHC = Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles

 

[stpurl]

You mean the way that lay people were supposed to abide by Humanae Vitae?