The moral voter: Bishop offers guidance to faithful Catholic voters
- Status
O
OneSheep
Guest
Some relevant ones:
This involves discerning on their part what is natural, and what is reasonable, of which science is included.
So, since the science cannot conflict with faith, the magisterium is vigilant and discerning about what scientific findings are accurate and reveal truth.
Other relevant sections:
Okay, now its your turn. Please provide a source that contests the teaching, something that says that the Spirit does not guide the Magisterium in their discernment of accurate science
O
OneSheep
Guest
Thank you @Motherwit for providing information about what vehicle is used by the Magisterium in discerning the most accurate scientific findings.
Yes, Ender, we expect that the Spirit guides the Church in its moral teachings, so such discernment is necessary.
This is data. Do you have a source that interprets the data? Ender, I don’t get it. What are you afraid of about presenting a source? Do you not have a source?
Of course you are justified. However, the Church’s mission is much more urgent; she must guide the world in terms of moral decisions. We rely on the fact that the Spirit guides the Church; please take another look at CCC 2039 posted above.
Now, a source?
What is the source for your assertion?
The Pontifical Academy made their determination of what is most accurate, as provided by @Motherwit . Now it is your turn to provide a source.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Dear Readers:
You can read between the lines in this thread. Posters who contest the statements by Bishop McElroy are unwilling to provide their sources, so the Bishop’s words stand as in conformity with the Magisterium. We can definitely use the Bishop’s words in guiding our vote, as well as other credible Catholic sources, sources identified as in conformity with the Church’s moral teachings.
Please be aware that lobbies or political action groups that have the word “Catholic” in their organization do not necessarily promote the teachings of the Magisterium, Church leadership.
You can read between the lines in this thread. Posters who contest the statements by Bishop McElroy are unwilling to provide their sources, so the Bishop’s words stand as in conformity with the Magisterium. We can definitely use the Bishop’s words in guiding our vote, as well as other credible Catholic sources, sources identified as in conformity with the Church’s moral teachings.
Please be aware that lobbies or political action groups that have the word “Catholic” in their organization do not necessarily promote the teachings of the Magisterium, Church leadership.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Natural law is no part of science, and science is no part of faith.
This talks about the scientist, whether faithful or not. There is nothing here suggesting that the church is uniquely directed by the Holy Spirit.
Discerning scientific truth is an entirely scientific endeavor; it has nothing to do with faith or doctrine, and the church has no better claim nor stronger insight into those matters than anyone else.
None of this is really relevant. It speaks to the moral life of the church; science is not a question of morals. Interpreting the word of God properly belongs to the church. Unraveling the mysteries of science does not.
Your references do not in any way suggest what you claimed; they do not support your contention. This is your claim and you need to support it. These citations talk about natural law, and moral truth but the issue is scientific discovery. They say there is no conflict between science and faith, but the church has no doctrine about climate change, so whether it is or is not a valid theory it would not conflict with anything the church teaches.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Perhaps, but you did not address the core of the section of the CCC.
You can look at the CCC section on the Holy Spirit for that.
Okay, present a source, and let’s see if you have approached it in an entirely scientific way.
It seems like you have no regard for the Spirit working through the magisterium. Again, what is the source of your assertions?
Science can provide information concerning the most moral actions to take. For example, it would be immoral to treat a patient based on non-scientific premises and knowledge. This goes back to the doctors who wanted to treat AIDS patients with worthless remedies.
Well, the Magisterium is advised by the Pontifical Academy discussed on this thread. The Magisterium is the moral guide for the Church. And since you provide no source for your own assertions, it sounds like you would rather have us listening to you rather than the Magisterium.
I did, and you disagree. Now it is your turn to provide a source for your assertions. If you have nothing to present, please, let’s just drop it. You have nothing to stand on. You have given readers no alternatives except your own logic, which has no basis in doctrine or fact.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
The validity of a scientific theory is not an article of faith or morals, and the church has no more claim to scientific truth than the student working in his garage. Catholic scientists do not look to the church to validate their findings; they look to other scientists, religious or otherwise.
Yes, it is data, and it is readily understood by anyone willing to look at it, as I have done. It goes to the assertion that sea levels are rising at increasing rates. That’s the claim. The data say otherwise. The same is true about the claims that hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity. They are not, as can be seen by simply looking at the data. What is the need for someone else to read a graph that is obvious on its face?
I can say that none of my (multiple) sources is a media analyst.
The validity of AGW is a scientific question, not a moral one. What does the church say that the CO2 climate sensitivity value is? What does she teach about the extinction of polar bears? What does she say about the Arctic and Antarctic ice extents? We’re talking science, not faith, and while we do not expect them to conflict, neither should we expect that faith will provide us with answers to scientific questions.
I did. It is totally irrelevant to determining truth in matters of science.
My sources are actually irrelevant. Either the arguments I make stand up to scrutiny or they don’t, and saying “I’m quoting Dr. Who” doesn’t add anything at all to the strength of my arguments. You cannot rebut an argument by saying my source is not trustworthy. I don’t claim something is right because of who asserts it; I believe it because the evidence is convincing.
I made this challenge before: take any claim about the effect global warming is supposedly having and let’s see if you can sustain it with evidence and argument. “My source is better than your source” is not how science resolves problems.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well so far you have presented no sources, and your assertions have no basis in fact or doctrine, so I have no reason to believe that your sources are not media analysts. Your statements appear to have basis whatsoever.
The rest of your post is not worth contesting. You continue to assert your own righteousness.
E
Ender
Guest
This could hardly be more inaccurate. Bishop McElroy’s opinions on global warming are his and his alone. They do not demand assent even in his own diocese, they have no significance whatsoever outside of it. My bishop has made no such statement, and I am certainly not bound by the Bishop of San Diego. There is no “conformity with the Magisterium” here. Even statements from the entire USCCB don’t come with that level of significance.
One could, but it would be a mistake to assume that the bishop’s opinions on these matters are any more informed than those of the average poster on these forums. We all have political opinions, and they are arrived at the same way the bishop arrived at his, and this is precisely why I object to the involvement of the clergy in politics: the random Catholic is often unable to distinguish between statements of faith and morals, and, as in this case, statements of political opinion.
U
upant
Guest
the accord and the applications of it,
she linked to their letter, it is not a source and it links to other summaries, where are the studies, the data
Is this an infallible letter? is the church infallible on science as they are on faith and morals?
you haven’t provided a source to back up your claim. if you want me to believe it, you need to prove the info you place faith in is accurate. I don’t need to prove you are wrong you need to prove you are right.
even the pope says
and it may well not witness extraordinary climate change
may is subjective, the debate is not settled.
is a sin based on may?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Your source cites a study done by an oil company. This sort of sourcing can be reasonably read with eyes of skepticism by readers.
We all have our own biases. What does the article say that appeals to you?
We all prefer sources that agree with groups we consider more ideologically sound. Does that article from “HotAir” seem to be in sync with ideologies you value?
As Catholics, we look to the Magisterium for guidance on faith and morals. “Infallibility” is in itself defined and limited to certain circumstances. It sounds like you disagree about the moral guidance, is that correct?
I don’t need a source to evaluate whether the Bishop is in conformity with the Magisterium. What the Bishop said is in conformity with the Pope’s encyclical. If he said something against Laudato Si, then that would be reason to question his statements. As Catholics, we trust in their findings, and we trust our Bishops. If you don’t trust them, that is your choice.
In the mean time, perhaps you could come up with a more unbiased report than an opinion article by “HotAir” based on an oil company’s findings.
O
OneSheep
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
Fine, here’s my latest “source” - the Geophysical Research Letters, one of the top journals on climate issues. I’ll include the entire abstract:
The reduced human activities and associated decreases in aerosol emissions during the COVID‐19 pandemic are expected to affect climate. Assuming emission changes during lockdown, back‐to‐work and post‐lockdown stages of COVID‐19, climate model simulations show a surface warming over continental regions of the Northern Hemisphere. In January–March, there was an anomalous warming of 0.05–0.15 K in eastern China, and the surface temperature increase was 0.04–0.07 K in Europe, eastern United States, and South Asia in March–May. The longer the emission reductions undergo, the warmer the climate would become. The emission reductions explain the observed temperature increases of 10–40% over eastern China relative to 2019. A southward shift of the ITCZ is also seen in the simulations. This study provides an insight into the impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on global and regional climate and implications for immediate actions to mitigate fast global warming.
Let me translate this so it is obvious: the shutdown of so much industry and transportation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has not reduced temperatures as predicted, rather it has led to an increase. Oops. The reason for this is that CO2 is in fact not driving global temps; it is the decrease in aerosol emissions that is causing the warming.
So which has more significance: this study by actual scientists, or the personal opinion of a bishop with no scientific expertise? Does anyone really believe the Holy Spirit is whispering the secrets of global warming in his ear?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, when emissions are reduced in the short term, the surface of the Earth increases in temperature. The same phenomena occurred following 9/11. Emissions reflect some solar energy back into space, but the overall effect long-term effect is still one of global climate change, according to climate science, and that humans are contributing to it, as acknowledged by the Pontifical Academy. The article you cited does not refute any of this.
Now, let’s go into the more important questions:
We all have our own biases. What does the article say that appeals to you, versus hundreds of others that say something different?
We all prefer sources that agree with groups we consider more ideologically sound. Does the statement in the abstract seem to be in sync with ideologies you value?
Thank you so much for providing a source. Do you have any others that actually refute Laudato Si or Bishop McElroy’s statement?
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
is the data correct or not? the accord does nothing to stop CO2 emission and allows new emissions for 10 years, the accord must not see emissions as a problem.
If the info isn’t infallibly defined, it can be wrong.
you need to show the magisterium is correct? scientific statements should be backed up with facts, not just because bishops agree with it.
again are they infallible on issues of science?
our bishops are often on both sides of the issue because we are able to disagree with the church on issues. we do not follow blindly.
for instance, the bishop conference disagreed with Mcelroy on the importance of climate change
it is a ranking of reduction until you prove it wrong, it stands.
the Paris accord is just wealth distribution with no authority to force compliance and it isn’t being complied with by those hollering loudest.
you have just presented opinion and not facts. science needs facts to support it, not opinion,
E
Ender
Guest
“Emissions” do that? CO2 is an emission, does it behave that way, and why do emissions behave differently in the short term than they do long term. What’s the science behind that?
What the article alleged is that reducing “emissions” which include both CO2 and aerosols causes the global temperature to rise, but if CO2 was the driving force then temperatures should go the other way. That is, actual evidence contradicts the “climate science” theory.
That’s your rebuttal: “You like this because you’re biased?” Nothing about the science? The science is valid or it isn’t, and my biases play no part in that.
The difference between this one and the presumed “hundreds of others” is that unlike them, which are based on models and predictions, this one is based on actual data. Bummer.
Their statements are based on the assumption that AGW is an accurate theory, an assumption this study seriously challenges. Your position is that the Spirit leads the church in matters of science, and not just the Magisterium but individual bishops are protected from error, a position the church doesn’t even take with regard to faith and morals, let alone science.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I give more credence to the Pontifical Academy than a single study put out by an oil company. The Pontifical Academy does not look at one source, but all sources.
Besides, the study doesn’t say anything about appropriate moral behavior, so it’s not applicable.
Particulate and certain molecules reflect solar radiation back into the atmosphere. So, if it wasn’t for the particulate, global warming would be far worse. Emissions do not behave differently in the short term and long term. The short-term effect of removing the particulate is that the surface gets hotter very quickly, no matter what the level of CO2. However, the more heat-absorbing molecules in the atmosphere, over time the atmosphere absorbs more heat.
You would think so, but as after 9/11, the removal of contrails let more rays get to the Earth’s surface. Imagine removing a parasol. The planet is getting warmer, but at the same time we have a smoke parasol. Take the parasol away, and things get hotter very quickly.
What this study confirms is that global warming has to be addressed very carefully. Yes, we need to reduce greenhouse gasses, but if we are too quick to reduce particulate, we may be in more trouble in the short term. We are in a big mess! In California, where the air is now cleaner of particulate because of air pollution laws, some of the increased surface temp is due to the loss of the particulate parasol.
You are thinking that other studies by climatologists are not based on actual data. Perhaps you could bring forth a study to prove your accusation?
It’s not a “rebuttal”. You obviously searched for an article that seemed to support your opinion, right? But the study did not address the fact that the more heat-absorbing molecules in the atmosphere, the warmer the climate gets.
Admit it, Ender, you looked for a study that supported your opinion, right? Because you already have a mindset that 97% of the climatologists are wrong. Now, can you present a source that actually is the basis of your bias?
U
upant
Guest
please provide the data they used that countered this study
the study is showing various countries’ emissions information, it isn’t a moral issue,
the reduction in emissions is a fact, if this study is wrong please provide data showing it is wrong.
this has been proven to be a false number, while overall high only 43% are very much convinced
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
you did not address that the majority of US bishops at their recent conference weren’t on board with bishop McElroy’s push on climate change. are they wrong for voting down his statement? are we wrong for standing with them?
P
pnewton
Guest
Humane Vitae was was not infallible. It is, however solid Church doctrine. It is not honest to accept one level of Church teaching for topics on agrees with and another for topics one dissents to. Evangelium Vitae was rooted, according the introduction in the social encyclical Rerum Novarum, as Laudato Si was a continuation of Pacem in Terris.
All these were encyclicals by the current pope, non of which claimed infallibility. They are all Church doctrine, not a cafeteria menu.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I’ll let you look that up. 97% of climatologists agree with the basic conclusions. This thread is about guiding the faithful with their vote, and the faithful generally value the guidance from the Magisterium.
I have no reason to believe it is wrong. Think about it. Smog reflects some solar energy back into space. If you remove smog, the Earth’s surface gets warmer because more solar energy makes it to the surface. Perhaps you have seen the smog in China. To conclude that reducing smog increases the global warming trend would be a misread. Smog has a net long-term effect of warming the planet.
Of course not. Catholic voters must listen to their consciences. The bishops did not deny the importance of global climate change.
Last edited:
- Status