US Catholics ready to follow Pope's 'marching orders' on climate change

[CatholicKnight3]

I am sorry, but any time rhetoric is shared with the godless left, it ought to give anyone pause. I am also deeply offended by anyone that would claim that anyone who differs with the OPINIONS of the MAN MADE global warming issue ought to be EXCOMMUNICATED should be be reprimanded at the very least by the board moderators.

I have had it up to HERE (my hand is way over me head) with people on these types of boards making outrageous statements of judgement. It deeply affects those like me who have STRUGGLED badly with scrupulosity. Biting our finger nails afraid to do ANYTHING.

Trust me, those who do not know what that is like, you do not want to know.

The fact that this ISSUE has been turned into a TRILLION DOLLAR industry ought to also give everyone pause. The love of money is the root of evil. That, is GOSPEL and do not think for one moment that a TRILLION DOLLAR monster is not formidable.

Especially, when there has been people on these boards that have provided empirical evidence that this WARMING CYCLE has slowed. There is more than a little empirical evidence that the warming that has been going through (since the end of the little ice age which stopped around 1850) was not influenced by man since that is long before the combustion engine was invented.

I mentioned that the sea levels have not risen significantly and there have been studies showing that the hype regarding that claim is greatly exaggerated. I live in Florida, which is at sea level., and Florida has NOT been disappearing.

I expect the moderators to reprimand anyone claiming that this issue is a scam should be excommunicated. Also, when they make absurd statements that the Koch brothers are all going to hell along with any Tea Party member.

That takes real nerve.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am sorry, but any time rhetoric is shared with the godless left, it ought to give anyone pause.

Do you mean that it ought to give anyone pause that the pope advocates for an issue that happens to also be advocated by the “godless left”? That is guilt by association, and a logical fallacy. The position that is advocated for is either right or wrong, regardless of who else happens to support it or oppose it.

I am also deeply offended by anyone that would claim that anyone who differs with the OPINIONS of the MAN MADE global warming issue ought to be EXCOMMUNICATED

Such claims are clearly out of bounds. I would be offended too.

I have had it up to HERE (my hand is way over me head) with people on these types of boards making outrageous statements of judgement.

Yes, that happens a lot. On both sides of these debates. It would be better if people only claimed what they thought they could truly justify, and not engage in hyperbole.

It deeply affects those like me who have STRUGGLED badly with scrupulosity.

Truly sorry to hear that. I will try not to lay any guilt trips.

The fact that this ISSUE has been turned into a TRILLION DOLLAR industry ought to also give everyone pause. The love of money is the root of evil. That, is GOSPEL and do not think for one moment that a TRILLION DOLLAR monster is not formidable.

Is it just the fact that there is a trillion dollars involved? Or is it more? Because there are other trillion dollar industries that no one fears.

Especially, when there has been people on these boards that have provided empirical evidence that this WARMING CYCLE has slowed.

They have cited claims that there has been a pause for 18 years, but those claims are disputed. So that does not constitute irrefutable evidence.

I mentioned that the sea levels have not risen significantly and there have been studies showing that the hype regarding that claim is greatly exaggerated. I live in Florida, which is at sea level., and Florida has NOT been disappearing.

Are those empirical observations consistent with these?

I expect the moderators to reprimand anyone claiming that this issue is a scam should be excommunicated. Also, when they make absurd statements that the Koch brothers are all going to hell along with any Tea Party member.

That takes real nerve.

I agree.

 

[Corki]

I do not agree that “the bishops” have had an uneasy alliance with conservatives in the U.S. Some of the bishops who write letters on USCCB letterhead do, but can anybody really say Bp Chaput, for example, has a problem with conservative Catholics? They don’t seem to have much problem with him. What about Bp. Cardileone, with whom conservatives have no problem but who liberals are trying to oust? My own bishop doesn’t seem to have a problem with conservative George Weigel, whose column is in every issue of the diocesan newspaper.

I will grant, however, that some of the more vociferous bishops who head USCCB committees have a problem with conservatives. My unofficial count of those is three.

**I think this encyclical will pose a problem for the bishops who do NOT see themselves as allies of the Democrat party. I really do. **The Catholics who actually go to Mass regularly and support the Church, stay married to their spouses and do not abort tend to be the conservative Catholics. It might be mentioned that, among white Catholics, the majority voted for the Republican presidential candidate in the last two elections. Obama “got” the Catholic majority only because of Hispanics. Were those Repub voters really liberals? I doubt it.

Hopefully, that will only be temporary. I just don’t see any Bishop saying (with a straight face) that the lives of the unborn and the protection of the family are not as important as carbon offsets or a global climate treaty. That would seriously damage credibiity.

 

[Adonia]

Are they not one and the same? I was raised with the precept that in all areas of my life I must act as a catholic; I could not put aside my religious beliefs when dealing with the secular world.

Our goal as Christians is to follow gospel values to such an extent that we become images of Christ for others.

"My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. "

No, they are not the same. This issue has become one big political football. And I do not support illegal immigration either despite the USCCB and the Pope’s views on the matter.

 

[Adonia]

That line is not always so clear. Is supportive the poor a spiritual matter or an economic one? What about the popes role in the fall of the Soviet Union? Wasn’t that political? Destroying the environment ultimately harms the poor the most

As does doing away with using coal that ultimately makes electricity for the poor more expensive too. We in the 1st world have cleaned up our act with anti-pollution innovations, so people need to stop blaming us. Everything we use has a power usage cost, from the computer, to your cell phone, to everything you use that comes by motorized conveyance. Face it, for all our knowledge we are still on the bottom rung of the evolutionary ladder by our usage of fossil fuels. They are cheap, plentiful and they work and until the next big leap we are stuck with them. What do you want to do, go back to the horse and buggy and communicate by courier?

As far as the Soviet Union days, I’d say freeing millions of people from the bondage of communism was political AND the right thing for the Pope to do. Liberty for all humans and wanting me to join in to some unproven “global warming” hoax are two different things entirely. I’ll pass on this one, thank you very much!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We in the 1st world have cleaned up our act with anti-pollution innovations, so people need to stop blaming us.

I don’t know what that has to do with blindmouse’s comment which you quoted. But it is worth pointing out that even with our more efficient and cleaner generation of power, we in the 1st world still use more power and generate more pollution per person than those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder in an underdeveloped country. That is because those people use so much less energy than we do. Even if they use it less efficiently, the fact that they use so little makes their per-person impact on the environment less than ours.

 

[freeRadical]

No, they are not the same. This issue has become one big political football. And I do not support illegal immigration either despite the USCCB and the Pope’s views on the matter.

Maybe the US should make it easier for these illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants.

 

[Adonia]

Maybe the US should make it easier for these illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants.

Why? At this point we are already accepting a large amount of legal immigrants and I don’t think we need to up the number. In fact, I would be all for a moratorium on legal migrants as well for a certain period of time. What we don’t need is large numbers of people who have little or no working skills - legal or illegal, who will ultimately have the need of taxpayer funded government services. We can barely afford to take care of our own.

I just heard a report today that all those kids that came in from Central America last year have swelled the school system in Long Island New York and they can’t cope with the influx. There are not enough teachers or funds to adequately take care of them all. This is an insane policy if you ask me. We cannot continue to add millions of people into the country without having severe effects on those who were born here.

 

[Adonia]

I don’t know what that has to do with blindmouse’s comment which you quoted. But it is worth pointing out that even with our more efficient and cleaner generation of power, we in the 1st world still use more power and generate more pollution per person than those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder in an underdeveloped country. That is because those people use so much less energy than we do. Even if they use it less efficiently, the fact that they use so little makes their per-person impact on the environment less than ours.

Are you feeling guilty because we have so much? I’m not. We have done more good around the world with our advances than just about anyone else. We send medicines, doctors, and money all over the place that helps those in poor countries. If we hadn’t advanced by using all the energy that we do, they would be a lot worse off.

 

[freeRadical]

Why? At this point we are already accepting a large amount of legal immigrants and I don’t think we need to up the number. In fact, I would be all for a moratorium on legal migrants as well for a certain period of time. What we don’t need is large numbers of people who have little or no working skills - legal or illegal, who will ultimately have the need of taxpayer funded government services. We can barely afford to take care of our own.

I just heard a report today that all those kids that came in from Central America last year have swelled the school system in Long Island New York and they can’t cope with the influx. There are not enough teachers or funds to adequately take care of them all. This is an insane policy if you ask me. We cannot continue to add millions of people into the country without having severe effects on those who were born here.

Because immigration is good for the economy. Immigration grows the economy. Also, I would rather have these illegal immigrants legally working and paying taxes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you feeling guilty because we have so much? I’m not. We have done more good around the world with our advances than just about anyone else. We send medicines, doctors, and money all over the place that helps those in poor countries. If we hadn’t advanced by using all the energy that we do, they would be a lot worse off.

I see where you are coming from. You feel that because we have done so much good for the less fortunate all around the world, that we deserve to use more resources than anyone else, even though the resources that we use for helping others is a tiny fraction of the resources we use for our own internal consumption.

Let me tell you what I think of that sense of entitlement. The resources that God placed here for our use are a gift. An undeserved gift - for no one truly deserves the blessing that God bestows. About all those medicines we develop and doctors we send to other countries, our attitude ought to be one of gratitude to God for giving us the opportunity to serve him so well, rather than the attitude that says the rest of the world should be so thankful to us that we decided to let a few crumbs fall from our table. It is a grave mistake to think that somehow we in the US, being only 4.4% of the world’s population, are entitled to take and consume for our own pleasure, 25% of the world’s oil, 23% of the coal, 33% of the world’s paper, 27% of the aluminum, and 19% of the copper.

 

[sps49]

Are you feeling guilty because we have so much? I’m not. We have done more good around the world with our advances than just about anyone else. We send medicines, doctors, and money all over the place that helps those in poor countries. If we hadn’t advanced by using all the energy that we do, they would be a lot worse off.

It will never be enough. We could be wearing gunny sacks, walking with sandwich boards that said “unworthy” and ringing a bell whilst shouting “unclean!” and it would still not be enough. Those that build will always take abuse from those who can’t.

 

[bibcat]

theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/pope-encyclical-climate-change-catholics-us-response
Religious leaders say pontiff’s call for action brings urgency to existing support for environmental measures in Obama administrations’s climate plan
Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent

Leaders of the Catholic church in America took their “marching orders” from the pope’s encyclical on Thursday, fanning out to Congress and the White House to push for action on climate change. The high-level meetings offered a first glimpse of a vast and highly organised effort by the leadership of America’s nearly 80 million Catholics to turn the pope’s moral call for action into reality.

“It is our marching orders for advocacy,” Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Archbishop of Louisville, said. “It really brings about a new urgency for us.” Representatives of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops said they would hold two briefings for members of Congress on Thursday and visit the White House on Friday to promote and explain the pope’s environmental message.

Personally, I believe Pope Francis should excommunicate from the Church any Catholic who disobeys or tries to undermine this encyclical. Pope Francis reference to killing Mother Earth and the people who live on it.

-The Heck with the Kock Brothers, we know where they’re headed in the next life. The Pope is the moral leader of the Catholic Church and must be obeyed by every Catholic!

Not this Catholic! His Holiness may have a degree in chemistry, or so I’ve heard. But he’s no climatologist. He’s being deluded by liberal elites that are not only hostile to the Church, but to the working class he professes to support. Sure the Earth is getting warmer. Has been since the last ice age. And a slight tilt in the Earth’s orbit can do weird things. But human activity accelerating “climate change”? Jury is still out. And there has been too much cooking and cherry-picking of data by supporters of the man-made climate change idea.

 

[Scottgun]

Selective ultramontanism.

 

[Tsuwano]

Why does it matter whether you believe in climate change or not? The Pope has called for us to initiate a new relationship with the Earth and our environment based upon a love and stewardship of nature, a realization that we share the planet with other creatures, a life of simplicity, an end to greed and consumerism, a conservative use of resources, a recycling of created goods, and a recognition of God as the source of all creation. I think this means that each individual should reasses his relationship with creation and take action to allign his life to realize this new relationship. It also means that Catholic institutions, such as seminaries, churches, schools, etc, must also take action to bring their policies and buildings in line with this new vision. You don’t have to believe in climate change to initiate this new way of seeing creation.

 

[Cider]

Where were all these Catholics, so willing and eager to obey ‘this’ encyclical, when Pope St. John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?

Or when Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae?

If people are so all fired up to acknowledge the Pope’s authority as a ‘mandate’ or marching order on this encyclical (and mind you, I find some compelling arguments and already do, or plan to do, quite a few things mentioned here). . .

then they need to start obeying to the SAME DEGREE for every OTHER Papal encyclical.

We don’t play favorites. A Pope is a Pope is a Pope, and if an encyclical is considered authoritative for **one **Pope, then encyclicals by others are also authoritative as well.

If Pope Francis’ words on the environment are something that loyal Catholics in the world (especially the U.S.) are ‘to consider marching orders’. . .

Then those same Catholics need to do the very same ‘marching’ for those encyclicals above as well as any others.

Exactly. I find it amusing and sad at the same time. It’s amazing all the support for climate change at the same that the churches teachings on life, birth control and homosexuality are so often not even mentioned in homilies and ignored by the majority of catholics if you believe the polls.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Why does it matter whether you believe in climate change or not? The Pope has called for us to initiate a new relationship with the Earth and our environment based upon a love and stewardship of nature, a realization that we share the planet with other creatures, a life of simplicity, an end to greed and consumerism, a conservative use of resources, a recycling of created goods, and a recognition of God as the source of all creation. I think this means that each individual should reasses his relationship with creation and take action to allign his life to realize this new relationship. It also means that Catholic institutions, such as seminaries, churches, schools, etc, must also take action to bring their policies and buildings in line with this new vision. You don’t have to believe in climate change to initiate this new way of seeing creation.

It matters because the goals of the left, which the pope is endorsing, will harm millions of people, destroying jobs, decreasing food storage capability, decreasing food production, and decreasing economic growth.

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t know what that has to do with blindmouse’s comment which you quoted. But it is worth pointing out that even with our more efficient and cleaner generation of power, we in the 1st world still use more power and generate more pollution per person than those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder in an underdeveloped country. That is because those people use so much less energy than we do. Even if they use it less efficiently, the fact that they use so little makes their per-person impact on the environment less than ours.

So what concrete steps should we in the first world do? Give up our cars and go back to living like the Amish?

 

[sps49]

Why does it matter whether you believe in climate change or not? The Pope has called for us to initiate a new relationship with the Earth and our environment based upon a love and stewardship of nature, a realization that we share the planet with other creatures, a life of simplicity, an end to greed and consumerism, a conservative use of resources, a recycling of created goods, and a recognition of God as the source of all creation. I think this means that each individual should reasses his relationship with creation and take action to allign his life to realize this new relationship. It also means that Catholic institutions, such as seminaries, churches, schools, etc, must also take action to bring their policies and buildings in line with this new vision. You don’t have to believe in climate change to initiate this new way of seeing creation.

The encyclical cares not if we believe in AGW, but since it utilizes as a device AGW, knowing full well how politically charged it is, how polarizing it is in our time, it has in effect taken sides. Unless you have been living in a cave, you realize that this carries with it spectacularly political capital, which will result in even greater polarization. That’s why it matters to me, the fact that the intellectual liberty of people who dissent will be affected. This can not be looked at in isolation, that it was just one word, mentioned only a few times, it has been attached to a moral framework. It has already affected how we communicated with each other on this thread, and in the real world. It was a blunt instrument.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So what concrete steps should we in the first world do? Give up our cars and go back to living like the Amish?

Why are you asking me?