- Status
E
Ender
Guest
In all likelihood this USCCB document will come to be viewed by future generations in the same light as we look back on a papal bull about the existence of witches. Scientifically I suspect they are equally sound. The very best that could happen is if the document ends up as credible as the church’s position on geocentrism.
Ender
Ender
J
jwinch2
Guest
Climate change is hardly settled science, regardless of how you look at it. There have been too much fudging of data, and false statements on both sides of the political aisle and the “scientists” beholden to them, to truly have a clear picture of what is, or is not, happening.
A more appropriate approach in my opinion would be for the bishops to focus their efforts on being good stewards of the planet which God gave us and leave the climate change aspect alone until the argument is more clearly settled. Frankly, I don’t think that the USCCB even needs the climate change argument to make their point. Earth belongs to God, not to us. As such, it would seem to me that this should be enough for Catholics to be in agreement that taking care of it is a good idea.
What should be easily understandable regardless of one’s belief or lack thereof in climate change is that pollution, waste, destruction of habitat, extinction of species, etc. cannot be good things. Simple logic and prudence can tell us that these things are bad. Without knowing for sure whether or not climate change exists, and to what level it is or is not man made, we can surely agree that we have a moral obligation to take good care of what God has given us, to use it wisely, and leave it better than we found it for the next generation.
If the bishops would focus their writings on this issue in that direction rather than raising the alarm about climate change, I personally believe much more good would come of it.
A more appropriate approach in my opinion would be for the bishops to focus their efforts on being good stewards of the planet which God gave us and leave the climate change aspect alone until the argument is more clearly settled. Frankly, I don’t think that the USCCB even needs the climate change argument to make their point. Earth belongs to God, not to us. As such, it would seem to me that this should be enough for Catholics to be in agreement that taking care of it is a good idea.
What should be easily understandable regardless of one’s belief or lack thereof in climate change is that pollution, waste, destruction of habitat, extinction of species, etc. cannot be good things. Simple logic and prudence can tell us that these things are bad. Without knowing for sure whether or not climate change exists, and to what level it is or is not man made, we can surely agree that we have a moral obligation to take good care of what God has given us, to use it wisely, and leave it better than we found it for the next generation.
If the bishops would focus their writings on this issue in that direction rather than raising the alarm about climate change, I personally believe much more good would come of it.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
It’s good the bishops, as well as JPII and BXVI, are on the side of science, prudence, morality, and life on planet earth.
We’ve been mitigating climate change for over 22 years, and have saved many $1000s by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 60%+ below our 1990 level without lowering living standards, and have many more money-savings things to do.
I know Catholics are much better on the climate change issue than non-Catholics (68% Catholics in America accept it compared to 62% non-Catholics).
I just hope more would mitigate, even if they are not totally convinced of the science, just to be on the prudent safe side, at least do those things that have no cost (or take very little effort) or save them money and help mitigate other problems.
That’s my prayer.
We’ve been mitigating climate change for over 22 years, and have saved many $1000s by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 60%+ below our 1990 level without lowering living standards, and have many more money-savings things to do.
I know Catholics are much better on the climate change issue than non-Catholics (68% Catholics in America accept it compared to 62% non-Catholics).
I just hope more would mitigate, even if they are not totally convinced of the science, just to be on the prudent safe side, at least do those things that have no cost (or take very little effort) or save them money and help mitigate other problems.
That’s my prayer.
P
pnewton
Guest
I guess half the political spectrum would love for the bishops to stick to nothing but abortion and gay marriage and the other have would prefer they stick to nothing but social issues.
“Catholics by coincidence” was a term used by Scott Hahn were by on measures the Church by one’s own beliefs.
“Catholics by coincidence” was a term used by Scott Hahn were by on measures the Church by one’s own beliefs.
P
pollynova
Guest
I don’t know if climate change is actually our fault or not, but we should be good stewards of the Earth.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I guess we have our pet issues and are glad when the bishops address them.
I was into the anti-abortion movement after 1972 for a couple of decades, then got into environmental issues. By the 1990s I felt the abortion issue was being adequately addressed in my parish, and the environmental ones were not. I guess I’ll always be the odd person out bec of this tendency to get into things few are into. However, abortion and environmental issues are both life issues. They are just focused on different ways in which we need to reduce our harming and killing of people.
As for the gay issue, I’ve had some gay associates over the decades whom I respect, even before I became a Catholic. I think homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t feel society should dump on gays. I also never felt they were a threat to me or to society. I don’t think they “induct” people into their lifestyle (but perhaps they do). Rather I think one’s sexuality is pretty strong; it just seems to happen naturally and by adolescence most are typically attracted to the opposite sex, but sometimes to the same sex (whether due to “hero worship,” genetics, hormone-disrupting chemicals, hermaphroditism, or some deflecting life experience, etc). I also don’t feel that gays living together or even getting into a civil marriage is a threat to me or others. However, if they marry civily, that itself is a serious sin whatever the sexual orientation – much more serious than simply cohabiting, bec it basically says “I turn away from God and His provision of Holy Matrimony.” This is a position I came to embrace only after decades of becoming a Catholic, just like it took me a lot of time to understand why artificial birth control was a sin. Abortion and harming/killing people thru environmental harms are just more obviously sins to me, and I was against these from very early childhood, decades before I became a Catholic.
I accept what the Church says, so I am against gay marriage, and against civil marriage for both hetero- and homosexuals, but I respect gays as persons. I don’t want them to suffer violence and harm bec they are gay (or for any other reason). And I’d want them and their children to get all of the legal, governmental, economic and insurance benefits that accrue to married people, and also hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights, etc.
If we lived in a fair and just society (which we DO NOT), then there would be no problem or issue re “gay rights,” and hardly any Catholics would be concerned about gays getting helpful rights and benefits, bec they would already have them as persons of this just & good society.
It is good our bishops speak out about all the issues (whether some laypersons construct them as “right” or “left” issues), so we will clearly know right from wrong, and strive to overcome evil with good.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I personally hope bishops will focus on all aspects of social doctrine as defined by the Church. I simply believe they can get more mileage if they focus their argument in the direction of being good stewards of what God has given us rather than global warming.
P
pnewton
Guest
In this case, focus is not relevant. The statement was given in response to a request by Congress.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The bishops put out documents and focus them per the request of congress?
P
pnewton
Guest
Most men of faith will answer moral questions put to them if they think they can help. I believe this is all that is happening here. Respect for the environment is in the Catechism, but it is only a small section. Still, that is enough for a statement if asked.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I don’t have any problem with the provision of moral guidance. However, I don’t understand the need to couch it in the terms requested by congress. Or am I understanding your earlier statement incorrectly?
P
pnewton
Guest
That is how I understood the history of this statement. That is why I do not see the environment as a *focus *of the Bishops.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Thanks,
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I think it is sometimes good to focus on more specific issues that are extremely egregious (or involve widespread harm) – like medical abortions and not just on “Thou shalt not kill.” We need to hear both the general principle and the application of that to specific issues, at least now and then.
If the bishops were focusing more than 20% of their writings on global warming, then I’d be saying enough already, let’s hear about the other issues.
However, I think the Church in general has not reached nearly enough of a level on speaking out on the topic of global warming, bec even tho Catholics are better than non-Catholics on this issue, nearly a third of Catholics in America still reject Church advice on it (either claiming it is not happening, or that it is natural and there is nothing we can do). Also, even though 2/3 of Catholics (in America) do accept the science on it and are concerned about it, my sense is that not a whole lot of those Catholics are actually doing much to mitigate it.
And at the local level, I never hear my priests speak out about global warming, and I’ve been straining to hear one word about it for over 22 years. I did hear a priest in S. Francisco say something about it when I was at a conference there some 3 years ago.
So, yes, there is a need for the Church to speak out on global warming a lot more, until it finally trickles down to the parish level, at least to the level of mentioning it once to every 100 times they mention abortion – because global warming to me is the mother of all life issues, as it is projected to annihilate most, perhaps all of life on earth, if we continue our “business as usual” path.
What good it is to work to save lives from abortion or starvation, only to destroy them through global warming? Lots of charities working in Africa and other poor nations are asking that question as we are in the beginning stages of seeing some harmful effects of global warming (feeling all their good work is becoming unravelled by the negative effects of global warming).
However, because the harms from global warming are very slow in coming (projected for decades and centuries from now) we are perhaps becoming inured to them. Also we see our personal role/responsibility as very small, since it is the combination of everyone’s emissions. It’s nowhere near like having an abortion, even tho it’s possible an individual’s lifetime’s worth of GHG emissions could over several 100s of years (and certainly over 1000s of years) be responsible for killing one or more people.
There’s another issue that makes it important for bishops, priests, and laity to speak out on global warming and actually do great things to mitigate it. And that is nearly all measures that mitigate global warming also mitigate a host of other environmental problems – local & regional pollution (including miscarriages and birth defects), finite resource waste, ocean acidification, etc. And mitigation also saves money and helps the economy and our personal pocket-books; it can be done without lower living standards or productivity down to 50% to 75% GHG emissions reduction (at least in America). Mitigation of global warming can also be done in ways that improve people’s health and even reduce crime.
Global warming is an umbrella issue that has very much to do with being good stewards of creation in general. And because of its seriousness, people would be more inspired to mitigate it, and in that process mitigate a wide range of other environmental problems. It was the issue that go me off my duff 22 years ago to do something.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The Church has not declared in any sort of authoritative fashion that global warming is real and that the science is settled. Acceptance of global warming hypotheses, or agreement that it is man made, is not part of the deposit of Faith. Thus, the suggestion that Catholics are somehow wrong for disagreeing with global warming is false. Catholics cannot be held to account for disagreeing with Church teaching which does not exist in the first place.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that we should have respect for the natural world and be good stewards of God’s creation. That is good enough for me.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Church leaders have said the prudent thing to do is to mitigate climate change, and that it is everyone’s responsibility to do so. I agree. I guess one would not go to hell for disagreeing and failing to mitigate (but I’m not certain about that…).
People can disagree all they want with science and with reality, but reality doesn’t care or respond to people’s wrong ideas. I hope I am wrong and CC is not happening, but I’ve been studying the science pretty closely for some 25 years, so it would take the global average temp going down to pre-1960s levels for a decade or so while GHGs continued to increase in the atmosphere to convince me the science (based on the laws of physics) is wrong. I haven’t seen any science at all that convinces me CC is not real – despite great efforts by folk here at CAF to trot out denialist industry fake-science. And even if I were to become convinced CC is not happening, I’d still be mitigating it, simply bec doing so is saving me so much money.
Since mitigating CC also helps mitigate a host of other problems AND can save people a lot of money without lowering their living standards, it seems to me to be wrong to reject what our Church leaders (JPII, BXVI, and the bishops) are telling us to do re CC (whether or not we agree with them that it is happening).
A great way we can “be good stewards of God’s creation” and “keep the garden” (one of God’s first commandments to us), would be to mitigate climate change, and thus other serious environmental problems, as well.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Some bishops have said so, while others have disagreed. However, the Church has not spoken authoritatively on the issue. At most, it remains an area of prudential judgement, not doctrine.
There is no doctrine to disagree with. There is no way for people to be held morally culpable for disagreement doctrine which does not exist.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I am aware of one, Cardinal Pell, who does not believe CC is real. Who are the others? My impression is that nearly all either agree CC is real and a problem we should address, or they have expressed no opinion either way on the matter. So let me know who else is against accepting CC and mitigating it.
I understand it is hard to believe that we people could be doing such a dastardly deed to others on into the future. It’s very hard to face. And if one even considers thinking it might be real, then the next question is even more difficult: What should we and what can we do about it?
I’ve developed the Little Way of Environmental Healing to help overcome this very hard blockage – basically just do every little (and some big) things we can and offer it in love to God and our fellow brethren, and (as Mother Teresa tells us), our love makes it infinite.
Still one has to swallow a very big lump in their throat to acknowledge this is a problem and we need to address it. So I don’t blame anyone for shying away from it.
The Church has said “Thou shalt not kill,” so if one comes to understand that CC is harming and killing people on into the distant future (as I have come to understand), then one understands one needs to address this problem.
It is not for the Church to say definitively that CC or a certain type of chemical is killing people. That is for science to say. We then need to apply Church principles to the reality as we know and understand it. We’re only expected to do the best we can both to understand issues and to mitigate problems, no more than that. (God doesn’t expect miracles from us
)It is not the Church that holds people culpable of sins, but God, who knows our hearts and minds.
The Church, however, can guide us the best it can with what knowledge and wisdom its leaders possess, and most certainly has has spoken thru the writings and oral presentations of JPII, BXVI, the bishops (including the message of the OP), and others that we should mitigate CC.
Now if Cardinal Pell is made pope, then I guess we won’t be hearing anything about CC from the top, except that it is a hoax and we need not do anything about it. I, however, will continue on my path of mitigating and trying to inspire others to do likewise. My conscience would not allow me to do otherwise.
J
jwinch2
Guest
You are of course obligated to follow your conscience. My concern is when the argument gets framed as if Catholics are obligated to believe in something which they are not. The simple truth of the matter is that there is no doctrine on global warming that Catholics are bound to accept and adhere to.
- Status