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

[FollowChrist34]

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!

I am actually glad there is pressure (or “urgency”) for the right (religious or otherwise) in the US to get on board with this legislation. I am sad though that it came the way it did, that it had to be in an encyclical at all. Maybe someday the Pope will issue encyclicals against abortion and gay marriage and we can enjoy a long overdue similar epiphany on the left. Can’t you just see our social justice bishops coming out of the woodwork, embracing Catholic moral teaching with a new found vengeance? Again, it is very sad that that is what it would take to get us there…should force an examination of conscience, across the spectrum.

 

[sps49]

I think it is a mistake to reduce the encyclical to MMGW. That is only a scientific foundation for a very powerful and beautiful moral exposition of man’s interconnectedness with and proper relationship to nature. It is the concept of “ecological debt” - our duty to future generations vis-a-vis our common home - that I think will prove the most enduring element of the encyclical.

Even if MMGW were (somehow) proven one day to be an exaggeration or a mistake it doesn’t invalidate the encyclical one iota. Ecology is far more than MMGW and the unique “human ecology” that Francis has elucidated will, I feel, transform the environmental movement.

If that logic were taken, then any church documents prior to heliocentricism would be meaningless because they operate on a different scientific basis of the universe. That is obviously not the case.

Please. So-called MMGW is so politicized that the inclusion of controversial scientific material as fact cannot be viewed in any other way than as a necessary and supporting component, otherwise it would not have been placed there.

 

[JimG]

“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.

I confess I haven’t read the encyclical yet. I’m curious as to just what concrete actions the bishops will be advising Congress to take. Will there be a USCCB dilemma if particular representatives favor actions advocated by this encyclical but also favor same sex marriage and abortion? Will the catechism be revised to state that exhaling carbon dioxide is now one of the sins which cry out to heaven for vengeance?

 

[Vouthon]

Please. So-called MMGW is so politicized that the inclusion of controversial scientific material as fact cannot be viewed in any other way than as a necessary and supporting component, otherwise it would not have been placed there.

Honestly, as I’ve tried to explain on numerous occasions MMGW is not “politicized” in many other countries as it appears to be in the US. The right and the left in my country are not differentiated on MMGW, they are on fracking but not MMGW. Sometimes I think you guys exist in a bubble. The pope does not exist to cater to American political insecurities and peculiarities, nor Swedish, nor Swahili. His office is one of universal pastor. Since the pope is from Latin America and is the Bishop of Rome, why do you expect him to place perceived US needs above that of the rest of the Church? That MMGW can be a vehicle and tool for far left, anti-Christian, pro-choice advocates in the US (from what I’m apparently reading on CAF) is indeed lamentable if true but you cannot expect the pope to craft an encyclical intended for 7 billion human beings through the lens of a few million in the US alone who have a serious problem with it. Get out of the bubble, please, when it comes to humanity as a whole.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it is a mistake to reduce the encyclical to MMGW. That is only a scientific foundation for a very powerful and beautiful moral exposition of man’s interconnectedness with and proper relationship to nature. It is the concept of “ecological debt” - our duty to future generations vis-a-vis our common home - that I think will prove the most enduring element of the encyclical.

Even if MMGW were (somehow) proven one day to be an exaggeration or a mistake it doesn’t invalidate the encyclical one iota. Ecology is far more than MMGW and the unique “human ecology” that Francis has elucidated will, I feel, transform the environmental movement.

If that logic were taken, then any church documents prior to heliocentricism would be meaningless because they operate on a different scientific basis of the universe. That is obviously not the case.

There may be encyclicals against heliocentrism, but I’m not aware of them.

Apparently in Europe, everybody believes in MMGW. Apparently it isn’t a political issue there. Also, apparently, nobody does anything about it anyway. In the U.S., it is a serious political issue because the current administration threatens to do things that will harm people and the economy in the name of MMGW.

In America, the encyclical will receive little attention other than as a seeming endorsement of the “science underlying the theory of MMGW”. I think one can see that readily in these threads.

Generally speaking, those who are true believers in MMGW arent’ going to care much about anything else in the encyclical, and those who aren’t believers are going to think of it as spoiled. It’s like kicking one leg out from under a three-legged stool, because if MMGW isn’t a scientific certitude, the remainder of the flow is flawed by the seeming assumption that it is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Honestly, as I’ve tried to explain on numerous occasions MMGW is not “politicized” in many other countries as it appears to be in the US. The right and the left in my country are not differentiated on MMGW, they are on fracking but not MMGW. Sometimes I think you guys exist in a bubble. The pope does not exist to cater to American political insecurities and peculiarities, nor Swedish, nor Swahili. His office is one of universal pastor. Since the pope is from Latin America and is the Bishop of Rome, why do you expect him to place perceived US needs above that of the rest of the Church? That MMGW can be a vehicle and tool for far left, anti-Christian, pro-choice advocates in the US (from what I’m apparently reading on CAF) is indeed lamentable if true but you cannot expect the pope to craft an encyclical intended for 7 billion human beings through the lens of a few million in the US alone who have a serious problem with it. Get out of the bubble, please, when it comes to humanity as a whole.

If a tree falls and crashes through my roof, it has crashed through my roof, whether or not it also hit yours. Americans cannot be blamed for lamenting the fact that a tree came through their roof, and your intact roof does not change that.

But it’s not just 300 million. I think it’s pretty obvious that the Russians don’t believe in MMGW since their climatologists are predicting an imminent ice age. Obviously the Chinese and Indians aren’t impressed by MMGW. India, for example, recently fired that IPCC guy from their own environmental agency for falsifying information to support MMGW.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I never said any such thing. There was no accusation involved (other than you accusing me of being uncharitable). I just pointed out some historical facts and some current trends.

Let me refresh your memory. You said:

My feeling is that there are some (not all) of the bishops who are thrilled that they can use this issue to get back in the good graces of the Democratic party leaders. They will ignore those other pesky social morality issues and jump on the climate change bandwagon.

If a bishop ignores social morality issues in favor of “getting back in the good graces of the Democratic party leaders”, excuse me but that does sound like you imply " they are more interested in pleasing the Democratic party than in pleasing God, " who of course would be more interested in the morality issues than pleasing Democrats. Don’t hide from what you said. Either you meant it or you didn’t.

 

[sps49]

Honestly, as I’ve tried to explain on numerous occasions MMGW is not “politicized” in many other countries as it appears to be in the US. The right and the left in my country are not differentiated on MMGW, they are on fracking but not MMGW. Sometimes I think you guys exist in a bubble. The pope does not exist to cater to American political insecurities and peculiarities, nor Swedish, nor Swahili. His office is one of universal pastor. Since the pope is from Latin America and is the Bishop of Rome, why do you expect him to place perceived US needs above that of the rest of the Church? That MMGW can be a vehicle and tool for far left, anti-Christian, pro-choice advocates in the US (from what I’m apparently reading on CAF) is indeed lamentable if true but you cannot expect the pope to craft an encyclical intended for 7 billion human beings through the lens of a few million in the US alone who have a serious problem with it. Get out of the bubble, please, when it comes to humanity as a whole.

It was acknowledged as being political back in 2012 by the Stockholm Environment Institute:

sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2012-04-Cognitive-Climate.pdf

And by the MMGW leaning Cultural Cognition Project:

culturalcognition.net/blog/2015/6/10/against-consensus-messaging.html

What bubble do you inhabit? It is clear that MMGW is indeed politicized the world over.

 

[FollowChrist34]

We are touching on a good point - I thought about this last night. There are environmental offenders EVERYWHERE on the globe - look at Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina, China, Russia. What I am seeing on this thread (and others) is a good old-fashioned US vs. Europe spat. Kind of like Kasper and Burke. We all need to remember the rest of world out there. A lot of the deforestation, species extinction, misuse of resources, reckless application/handling of chemicals, and disposal of waste products, etc. are LOCAL issues and problems. The Pope is talking to everyone on the globe. This is a good thing.

 

[ocdnms]

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!

So much for “less than Catholic behavior not tolerated.” I guess this only applies to those who hold “traditional” Catholic beliefs. Those who probable believe it IS more important to talk about issues such as abortion, sodomy, contraception; than to discuss politically driven scientific theories. Oh my! Should I be excommunicated.

Increasingly fading out of this site. Pax.

 

[stinkcat_14]

We are touching on a good point - I thought about this last night. There are environmental offenders EVERYWHERE on the globe - look at Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina, China, Russia. What I am seeing on this thread (and others) is a good old-fashioned US vs. Europe spat. Kind of like Kasper and Burke. We all need to remember the rest of world out there. A lot of the deforestation, species extinction, misuse of resources, reckless application/handling of chemicals, and disposal of waste products, etc. are LOCAL issues and problems. The Pope is talking to everyone on the globe. This is a good thing.

Part of the problem in some of the less developed countries is that they cannot afford a clean environment. We in the developed part of the world value a clean environment and are willing and able to pay the price for it. But what do you do with a middle to low income country that has a pollution problem but cannot fix it without putting a lot of people out of work?

 

[Vouthon]

There may be encyclicals against heliocentrism, but I’m not aware of them.

Apparently in Europe, everybody believes in MMGW. Apparently it isn’t a political issue there. Also, apparently, nobody does anything about it anyway. In the U.S., it is a serious political issue because the current administration threatens to do things that will harm people and the economy in the name of MMGW.

In America, the encyclical will receive little attention other than as a seeming endorsement of the “science underlying the theory of MMGW”. I think one can see that readily in these threads.

Generally speaking, those who are true believers in MMGW arent’ going to care much about anything else in the encyclical, and those who aren’t believers are going to think of it as spoiled. It’s like kicking one leg out from under a three-legged stool, because if MMGW isn’t a scientific certitude, the remainder of the flow is flawed by the seeming assumption that it is.

I can completely understand and sympathise with what you are saying (even though I do believe in MMGW) but can one seriously expect the pope to craft an encyclical intended for his entire flock and tailor it according to knowledge of certain issues that are seen controversially in one part of the planet but not in others?

My point about heliocentrism is that many church documents prior to this and akin facets of modern cosmology becoming the standard model of the universe operated within the framework of the older one in their moral expositions of doctrine. The common opinion in Europe at the time was that celestial bodies were moved by angels. That this was ultimately wrong does not invalidate any church documents from the era, when this was the consensus among cosmologists, that use such ideas to explain moral truths. The same applies to MMGW (which I do accept but I’m working with the presumption here that its wrong). MMGW is the scientific consensus in 2015. It is not wrong for the pope to use it, even if it is ultimately wrong. Science, after all, progresses with the ages. Faith and science, however, do not exist in contradiction with one another. The church is open to learning from the insights of science and in turn infusing faith into it. The relationship is symbiotic.

I’m sorry about how this will be received in the U.S. given the difficulties you have outlined in great detail. I can’t really say any more, it is just something that the American Bishops, religious and laity will have to work out in the context of the polarized, partisan character of this issue in American politics.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Part of the problem in some of the less developed countries is that they cannot afford a clean environment. We in the developed part of the world value a clean environment and are willing and able to pay the price for it. But what do you do with a middle to low income country that has a pollution problem but cannot fix it without putting a lot of people out of work?

International subsidies and/or credits…isn’t that the right answer? Worldwide environmental codes if you will - not unlike building codes. Sorry I am being vague but this is such a broad, multi-faceted issue, right; how can you be anything but vague. If we can just pull everybody together in this direction a little bit - I am not looking for perfection or totalitarianism. The US for example has made such incredible progress in environmental protection in the last 50 years; it is astonishing. I guess I am more concerned with rebalancing the economy vs. the common good of the environment if you will. (do I sound like the Pope - good! maybe I can get a pass on reading the encyclical)

 

[Corki]

Let me refresh your memory. You said:

My feeling is that there are some (not all) of the bishops who are thrilled that they can use this issue to get back in the good graces of the Democratic party leaders. They will ignore those other pesky social morality issues and jump on the climate change bandwagon.

If a bishop ignores social morality issues in favor of “getting back in the good graces of the Democratic party leaders”, excuse me but **that does sound like you imply " they are more interested in pleasing the Democratic party than in pleasing God, **" who of course would be more interested in the morality issues than pleasing Democrats. Don’t hide from what you said. Either you meant it or you didn’t.

You are reading a lot more into this than I wrote so let me slow it down a bit.

• The USCCB has had a very uneasy alliance with conservatives in the US. They are on the same page when it comes to life issues and social morality.
• But they have a longer tradition of coinciding views with the Democratic party when it comes to poverty and immigration. (with regard to civil rights, the parties flip flopped).
• It has nothing to do with pleasing politicians “more than pleasing God”. But the Bishops do not function in a political vacuum. They must be very adept in the political sphere in order to affect change.
• This topic (climate change) just gives the Bishops (finally) something where they don’t have to be on the opposite end of a topic from the Democrats.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are reading a lot more into this than I wrote so let me slow it down a bit.

• The USCCB has had a very uneasy alliance with conservatives in the US. They are on the same page when it comes to life issues and social morality.
• But they have a longer tradition of coinciding views with the Democratic party when it comes to poverty and immigration. (with regard to civil rights, the parties flip flopped).

That may be of benefit to the Democrats, but it is of no consequence, or at least it should be of no consequence, to the bishops, whose only goal is doing the will of God in leading God’s people. The bishops are not tasked to cajole politicians, although the might do that in their spare time.

• It has nothing to do with pleasing politicians “more than pleasing God”. But the Bishops do not function in a political vacuum. They must be very adept in the political sphere in order to affect change.

I disagree. The bishops do not have to use politicians to lead the people of God. They can and do lead us directly - regardless of what politicians think. Actually is more the task of the laity to take what the Bishops teach us and apply it in the political sphere. It is** we** that must be adept in that sphere, not the bishops. I don’t recall St. Peter doing any special favors for the Roman Emperor to “affect change”.

• This topic (climate change) just gives the Bishops (finally) something where they don’t have to be on the opposite end of a topic from the Democrats.

Why would the bishops be so anxious to be on the same side of a topic with the Democrats, and not be just as anxious to be on the same side of this topic as the Republicans? It seems they could “affect change” using either camp, if that was their task, which I claim it is not anyway.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He *seems *to believe it?
That’s how it reads to you? As if he seems to believe it?

He sounds very passionate, assertive, and urgent on this topic IMO.

.

He allowed as how there are contrary opinions, but then appeared to come down foresquare on the MMGW theory side. That’s not inconsistent with what I said.

If you can read his mind to know for absolute certainty that he entertains no niggling questions about it and discounts any possibility whatever that dissenting opinions could be right despite his citation that they exist, then good for you. I do not purport to have that ability.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are reading a lot more into this than I wrote so let me slow it down a bit.

• The USCCB has had a very uneasy alliance with conservatives in the US. They are on the same page when it comes to life issues and social morality.
• But they have a longer tradition of coinciding views with the Democratic party when it comes to poverty and immigration. (with regard to civil rights, the parties flip flopped).
• It has nothing to do with pleasing politicians “more than pleasing God”. But the Bishops do not function in a political vacuum. They must be very adept in the political sphere in order to affect change.
• This topic (climate change) just gives the Bishops (finally) something where they don’t have to be on the opposite end of a topic from the Democrats.

There is a problem in that we almost never know what “the bishops” think about any of the political issues. What we get now and then is publication of a letter by one or two of them. A consensus opinion is extremely rare.

 

[Corki]

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.

How would that look, exactly? The judicial actions of the Church almost always are a consequence of** doing **something that is forbidden.

Abortion - Church teaching = don’t. If you do, excommunication may result.
Heresy - Church teaching = don’t. If you do, excommunication may result.

Sin, of course, includes commission and omission. Both result in spiritual death. But there aren’t really judicial penalties for the acts of omission.

Does the Church excommunicate someone who fails to pray, who doesn’t give enough to the poor or who rejects a vocation? No, she doesn’t even though those are really big directives.

Laudato Si is a call to DO, not a list of what not to do. I haven’t yet read any part of the document that directs us regarding something specific we are** not to do**. Sure, it is possible to fail in the doing, or to not do enough. But that would be a matter of sin, not of excommunication.

 

[philipl]

. The Pope is the moral leader of the Catholic Church and must be obeyed by every Catholic!

Well I guess papist (used as a pejorative) after all. If the Pope tells you who to vote for, would you? For example, catholic couldnt vote for Obama because he is prochoice?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are reading a lot more into this than I wrote so let me slow it down a bit.

• The USCCB has had a very uneasy alliance with conservatives in the US. They are on the same page when it comes to life issues and social morality.
• But they have a longer tradition of coinciding views with the Democratic party when it comes to poverty and immigration. (with regard to civil rights, the parties flip flopped).
• It has nothing to do with pleasing politicians “more than pleasing God”. But the Bishops do not function in a political vacuum. They must be very adept in the political sphere in order to affect change.
• This topic (climate change) just gives the Bishops (finally) something where they don’t have to be on the opposite end of a topic from the Democrats.

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.