USCCB and politics

[Arkansan]

Arkansan:

All voluntary human actions have a moral component. That the application of the Church’s moral doctrine to a particular situation is not unambiguous does not mean that it is beyond the scope of morality.

I want to be very careful about our terms. I don’t believe all actions may be judged as either moral or immoral; I think most of them are amoral. Choosing to eat my peas before my potatoes, while it is a voluntary action, really doesn’t have a moral component.

Some decisions are so trivial that it would be imprudent to waste time deliberating about them. Obviously, anything that is important enough to be the subject of political debate is non-trivial by definition.

As you said, what we are really discussing is the application of moral doctrine in specific circumstances, and it is precisely because the situation is ambiguous - that is, the best approach is not known - that our choices are prudential and not moral.

If I try to do the right thing, but err because I cannot know for sure what that is, I have made a mistake, but I have not sinned.

The point I’m trying to make is that prudential and moral aren’t contrary terms (prudence is one of the cardinal virtues after all). The fact that people can disagree in good faith about what the right thing to do is, doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objectively right thing to do, it just means that people can disagree in good faith. The Church’s moral doctrine isn’t irrelevant to questions of the prudential order, it’s just sometimes unclear how it should be applied.

What I object to are the judgments made about why a person does something

Agreed here. Accusations of bad faith in these matters are poisonous to reasonable discussion.

 

[Ender]

Discernment is practical. If it cannot be applied to the concrete here and now issues to be solved,what is it for?

Yes, discernment is practical, and it rarely involves moral choices. The church gives us broad objectives (feed the hungry, heal the sick…), but she leaves the discernment of how to achieve those goals up to the individual - the laity.

Do away with the word " political" in your question and look at it from Catholic Social Doctrine. Pick your subject and go ahead "apolitically"in the sense of " not partisan ". Refer to the Compendium as a means to help.

I don’t mean anything untoward by saying something is political. I’m happy to use the term practical instead. Nor am I going to find anything in Catholic Social Doctrine that is going to help me determine the best solution for practical social problems. The Compendium may well specify the objectives, but it says nothing whatever about what policies to implement to achieve those objectives…

 

[Ender]

The fact that people can disagree in good faith about what the right thing to do is, doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objectively right thing to do, it just means that people can disagree in good faith.

If the “right thing to do” could be known then it would be proper to say that people who oppose doing it were committing a sin as they would be intending a harmful outcome. Given that the right thing is almost never knowable what we are left with is each individual choosing what he believes is best, which is what leads to, and justifies, good faith disagreements.

The Church’s moral doctrine isn’t irrelevant to questions of the prudential order, it’s just sometimes unclear how it should be applied.

I have never held that the church’s moral doctrine is irrelevant, only that it is inapplicable in determining “the right thing to do” to achieve the best outcome. It can identify our goals, and put limits on the types of actions we may take, but it provides no guidance whatever in helping us choose between proposal A and proposal B.

The reason I so strongly object to political issues being treated as if they were moral choices is precisely because doing so says there is no such a thing as a good faith disagreement. It holds that the opposing political view is not merely mistaken, but positively evil. That bishops contribute to this perspective by advancing their political positions is truly unfortunate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even though Catholic doctrine does not demand assent to everything political said by our bishops, I personally choose to follow their guidance out of my respect for their position. I am in no way condemning others who chose not to follow them in these matters.

 

[Metis1]

It is just “amazing” that some think that scientists are so dishonest and/or ignorant in general, including about their areas of specialization. Ya just can’t talk to such people with their lack of knowledge as to how we do things, and it’s typically those on the right-wing politically that do this. I don’t think they have a clue how much education and work it takes, and being biased or ignorant simply would be an academic death to any serious scientist.

I wish we had an “ignore” option here as I’m sick and tired of reading some of the trash that some dump here.

 

[pnewton]

I wish we had an “ignore” option here as I’m sick and tired of reading some of the trash that some dump here.

That is the one feature I miss the most.

 

[Ender]

It is just “amazing” that some think that scientists are so dishonest and/or ignorant in general, including about their areas of specialization.

If you were talking about media portrayal of the topic I would agree with you, but I don’t think most people disparage “scientists” in general, despite the fact that a number of them individually have earned the epithets they receive. That people justifiably have a low opinion of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and others cannot be taken to mean most scientists are thought of that way.

If you want to discuss a particular topic you think best supports the AGW hypothesis, bring it up and let’s see where it goes.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

That’s too bad. Are we supposed to feel offended? You’re the one who clicked on my thread to begin with.

 

[pnewton]

First, the thread here aren’t owned. Second, I have no idea why you would feel offended.

 

[Metis1]

Here’s the Wikipedia page on “global warning”, and I post this as a reasonable source because it isn’t a politically-slanted website, plus at the bottom of the page there are links to scientific sources: Climate change - Wikipedia

To further discuss this with some and then having to read how we scientists are idiots and/or dishonest-- not interested.

 

[buffalo]

What? This is a Christian nation! We the people, (Catholic people) have a duty and responsibility to promote the fullness and truth of Catholicism. It creates a better society.

 

[Ender]

Here’s the Wikipedia page on “global warning”, and I post this as a reasonable source because it isn’t a politically-slanted website, plus at the bottom of the page there are links to scientific sources: Climate change - Wikipedia

I consider Wikipedia to be a very slanted source if only because it represents the bias of the people who last edited it, which on this topic is significant. This point was highlighted several years ago when Wikipedia (finally) did something about the fact that every single article (4000-5000) on any aspect of global warming was being edited by the same person to reflect his personal view on the subject.

Second, much of the article references the IPCC, which is a suspect source itself. That said, it surely reflects the AGW side of the issue quite well so for that reason it works well for this purpose. Since you didn’t choose a particular point to discuss, I’ll choose one from the article.

“Other likely changes include more frequent extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall with floods and heavy snowfall.”

These are assertions that have always been part of the AGW story, but the science appears to be unsettled in regard to whether these claims are in fact true. Is this study right? Dunno, but, based especially on past unrealized doom and gloom predictions, I am skeptical about the claims made in the Wiki article.

Inconvenient study concludes: warmer temperatures lead to a more stable climate – Watts Up With That?

My point here is not to suggest that this single study refutes the claims the article makes, it is only to demonstrate that the idea of “settled science” in regard to AGW is anything but, and to demonstrate that there are valid scientific reasons for opposing the AGW narrative.

 

[SuperLuigi]

There is no room in Catholic social doctrine for scandal or false compassion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Inconvenient study concludes: warmer temperatures lead to a more stable climate – Watts Up With That?

My point here is not to suggest that this single study refutes the claims the article makes, it is only to demonstrate that the idea of “settled science” in regard to AGW is anything but, and to demonstrate that there are valid scientific reasons for opposing the AGW narrative.

There may be valid reasons to oppose the AGW narrative, but the study cited is not one of them. The study does not find anything that would oppose the mainstream view of global warming. Never mind what Anthonty Watts says about the study. Click through to the study itself in ScienceAdvances. Fortunately WUWT does provide a link. What you find out is the meaning of the term “climate instability” in the study is nothing at all like the meaning we commonly associate with climate stability when we talk about global warming - namely the frequency or intensity of seasonal weather extremes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. What the research team means by “climatic instability” is “millennial-scale bipolar seesaw” of climate conditions. That is why their chief graph (climate change frequencies in years vs temperature in the antarctic) has a vertical axis labelled in years marked from 2,500 to 40,000. Climate that changes in only 2,500 years is considered very unstable, while climate that takes 40,000 years to reverse course is considered stable. It is clear that this meaning of “stability” has nothing to do with the AGW claim of global warming causing “unstable” climate. That is why Anthony Watts’ characterization of this being an “Inconvenient study” is so laughable. It is not inconvenient at all. It is just an example of the wide range of topics that climate scientists research. Painting this as a dispute among scientists is just inaccurate.

 

[graciew]

Ehhhh?
And my granny plays soccer…

What has that to do with the generals I dealt with from Ender’s post??
Relax…This thread is for people living in US .
I do not.
Have a good one!

 

[graciew]

I read it!
I am sure we will catch up with the discussion in some other thread,Ender.
Thanks for answering!

 

[HarryStotle]

Yup, nothing like an ignore button to reinforce the comforting feeling that I am right and you are wrong so I don’t have to listen to you anymore! You can be safely ignored!

Personally, never liked the feature.

If I can’t muster the personal conviction to ignore someone all on my own for good reason without the necessity of implementing artificial means, that reveals in me a proclivity or willingness to move with ease from “Ignore them!” to “Silence them!” No need to even start down that road.

 

[Ender]

Painting this as a dispute among scientists is just inaccurate.

Fine, here is an article with links to 100-ish links to other articles discussing this topic, including those from NOAA with conclusions like this:

‘It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.’

Which doesn’t keep them from making the common AGW prediction:

‘Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average’

And they make this prediction despite the fact that

human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable

To restate this, despite the lack of evidence from the past or present they can confidently predict that sometime in the future we will likely see more intense hurricanes. This is not science, it is soothsaying.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As I said, there may be reasons to oppose the AGW narrative, but the article you cited first is not one of them. The fact that you put it forth as that without going deeper into the original source shows the extent to which you trust the WUWT narrative without question.

 

[Theo520]

This is for Catholics who live in the USA:

Are we required to accept all the political comments and teachings of the USCCB? Sometimes I think they are correct, sometimes I am not so sure.

Do their pronouncements have the weight of the Vatican behind them? Are they required dogma? Why are they qualified to speak on political / economic matters? Is it a sin to disagree with their political statements?

What they say isn’t dogma but they are required to raise issues for consideration.

I think the tone matters and unfortunately, I don’t think they are balanced in their analysis in many cases. I think they need to better differentiate the role and responsibility of government with what the individual should be considering. They seem to foist responsibility for action on Govt rather than individuals.

The role and areas of responsibility is both focused and limited in scope for the Govt, by design.