USCCB offers principles for addressing climate change [CWN]

[lynnvinc]

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.

There is no doctrine on ingesting cyanide either, or putting it in someones food.

At some point we laity are called on not to be lazy, but apply our noggin to Church principles and doctrines.

And if one hasn’t got a noggin, then a half a noggin will do, and if one hasn’t got a half a noggin, thenGod bless him.

 

[jwinch2]

There is no doctrine on ingesting cyanide either, or putting it in someones food.

Yes there is. Suicide and murder are mortal sins. A cause and effect relationship has been established between poison and death. Unlike your opinions on global warming, there is no debate to be had on the link between the two.

At some point we laity are called on not to be lazy, but apply our noggin to Church principles and doctrines.

Actually no, we are not supposed to privately interpret Church teachings.

Furthermore, Its not being lazy to disagree with something we are free to disagree with. For the record, I teach research methods and biostatistics at a university and have a doctorate in the biomedical sciences. Please understand, I am not saying that to be a jerk or to trumpet my credentials. I am saying it so that you will realize that I do not come to conclusions on the scientific viability of certain arguments in a haphazard way. You can accuse others of not thinking or using their heads simply because they disagree with you if you like. However, I have spent a fair amount of time reading the investigations which have been published on this issue (not the ones published by the think tanks who are funded with partisan money, but the ones actually published in peer reviewed credible scientific journals). The research published on this in actual journals, not on the websites of lobbyists, suggest that we really do not understand the situation remotely as well as is often portrayed. This is not often mentioned in the media or by others having this conversation, probably because the good scientists who try to do their research properly and objectively don’t get invited to brush elbows with politicians and movie stars.

If you are convinced, that is fine. But you don’t get to tell other Catholics that they aren’t using their heads simply because they disagree with you. And you certainly don’t get to pass off your opinions as Catholic doctrine.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes there is. Suicide and murder are mortal sins. A cause and effect relationship has been established between poison and death. Unlike your opinions on global warming, there is no debate to be had on the link between the two.

But what if someone refuses to accept the science and instead claims that cyanide does not harm or kill people, and is quite upset that people are making a fuss over it being harmful, and thinks that all the scientists are in some conspiracy to make people avoid ingesting cyanide, then I guess it would be perfectly okay for him/her to ingest it and put it in people’s food, since the only thing that counts is people’s opinion and not what the scientists or the clergy say.

While I find that hard to swallow (pun intended ), if that’s what the Church says – behave according to whatever ideas and opinions you have, and you can totally ignore what experts and clergy say (e.g., the IPCC reports and the OP statement) if you sincerely disagree with them & think they are blatant liars – then I suppose it’s okay. Or at least the person is not culpable of any sin.

So, its perfectly fine to go ahead and burn (or cause to be burned) all the fossil fuels a person wants willy nilly – as long as that person truly does not believe doing so causes local pollution, acid rain, ocean acidification, global warming, and all the harmful impacts experts have associated with these, and to boot that person totally rejects the idea that he can accomplish his same aims with less pollution through energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy. And the only thing that person actually believes in is that wind energy kills birds at a much higher rate that cats and global warming – and killing birds is about the greatest sin a person can commit – while he totally rejects the notion that global warming could wipe out over 50% of bird species in the next few centuries.

 

[jwinch2]

While I find that hard to swallow (pun intended ), if that’s what the Church says – behave according to whatever ideas and opinions you have, and you can totally ignore what experts and clergy say (e.g., the IPCC reports and the OP statement) if you sincerely disagree with them & think they are blatant liars – then I suppose it’s okay.

There is nothing to disagree with regarding clergy. Catholics are not held accountable for the private opinions of priests and bishops or, for that matter, their public opinions. Catholics are not even held accountable for the opinions, public or private, of the majority of bishops, if they were inclined to express them. Catholics ARE held accountable for defined doctrine of the Church. One cannot disagree with doctrine which does not exist. Until you understand that, this conversation is pointless.

 

[pnewton]

Actually no, we are not supposed to privately interpret Church teachings.

Do you realize that when we define instruction from the Church as “prudential, so we can ignore it” that we are in fact interpreting Church teaching?

 

[Ender]

Do you realize that when we define instruction from the Church as “prudential, so we can ignore it” that we are in fact interpreting Church teaching?

Perhaps, but we have no instruction from the church. What we have are the opinions of individuals within the church which is not at all the same thing. The church has no teaching on climate change, which is unsurprising as it would be unreasonable to expect the church to take a position on a scientific question.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps, but we have no instruction from the church.

I see you slipped in a word change. I said “teaching”. The previous poster said “teaching.” You changed that to “instruction”.

 

[jwinch2]

Do you realize that when we define instruction from the Church as “prudential, so we can ignore it” that we are in fact interpreting Church teaching?

What instruction are you referring to? If you have magisterial teaching from the Church which states that we are required to accept Global Warming as part of the deposit of Faith please share it.

And no, that is not correct. An example of prudential judgement might be the manner in which we go about helping the poor through governmental economic policy. The Church does not mandate this, though she does state that governments have an obligation to help the poor. You and I, in good Faith and full conscience, can disagree on the implications of a particular policy or initiative when it comes to helping the poor, both sincerely wishing to do the right thing. Prudential judgement does not mean ignoring the teaching, it means that the Church has recognized her lack of competency in certain areas and has therefore left the implementation of certain teachings to the conscience of the faithful.

The question is whether faithful Catholics in good conscience have to agree that the language provided in the most recent CCC means accepting the hypothesis of Global Warming. This is where prudential judgement comes into play again. I’ve looked at the science, and I am not convinced. I have seen flaws in methodology, violations of statistical assumptions, over-generalization, and conflicts of interest galore in the literature. The majority of studies where those things are properly controlled show mixed results. There is no objective truth to be found on this issue at this time. As such, my conscience tells me, having done my best to properly form it, that there exists no solid evidence to support or refute the alternative/directional hypothesis of Global Warming. Until such time as the Church makes a definitive statement on the issue, I am free to disagree with it, or in my case, withhold judgement until better data is available.

In addition, until such time as the Church provides magisterial teaching on what being a good steward of the environment means, I will continue to do what I believe is right to include supporting recycling efforts, donating for the protection and restoration of habitat and endangered species, supporting the reduction of harmful chemicals, increasing cafe standards on vehicles, etc. If, at some point in the future, the Church provides magisterial interpretation of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition which states that I am not going far enough in my efforts, I will give it all due consideration and do my best to develop my conscience accordingly, as I try to do with all Church teaching.

 

[jwinch2]

I see you slipped in a word change. I said “teaching”. The previous poster said “teaching.” You changed that to “instruction”.

Actually, it appears to be you who slipped the word change in. I stated “teaching” but you stated “instruction”.

Actually no, we are not supposed to privately interpret Church teachings.

emphasis mine

Do you realize that when we define instruction from the Church as “prudential, so we can ignore it” that we are in fact interpreting Church teaching?

emphasis mine

 

[lynnvinc]

There is nothing to disagree with regarding clergy. Catholics are not held accountable for the private opinions of priests and bishops or, for that matter, their public opinions. Catholics are not even held accountable for the opinions, public or private, of the majority of bishops, if they were inclined to express them. Catholics ARE held accountable for defined doctrine of the Church. One cannot disagree with doctrine which does not exist. Until you understand that, this conversation is pointless.

So the Holy Father’s World Day of Peace messages (most notably the ones in 1990 and 2010) and everything else they say, and the US Bishops’ statements are just personal opinion one can totally ignore and reject out-of-hand, along with the OP message that Bishop Stephen Blaire wrote on behalf of the US Bishops at the request of Cardinal Dolan (see the OP message - usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/upload/Letter-to-Bicameral-Task-Force-on-Climate-Change-2013-02-21.pdf ) And we are down to the 9 commandments – “thou shalt not kill” being just too hard to follow.

So I guess it’s fine to consider JPII and BXVI and the US bishops to be a bunch of evil-doers in cahoots with the conspiracy of 2000 climate scientists to perpetrate fraud on the world. Or complete idiots, lacking in all wisdom when they express concern over what 98% of climate scientists are saying – that GW is real and harmful and will be much more harmful for 1000s of years if we pursue our current business-as-usual path.

I guess only when science reaches 99.99% confidence on GW might one consider looking into the issue. (Science reached 95% confidence by 1995 and has become stronger and more robust ever since; and the greenhouse effect theory based on the laws of physics has been around for over 100 years, and is the only thing that explains why earth is 32C warmer than it should be and the more extreme levels of many of the past warmings & coolings, than can be accounted for simply by solar irradiance.)

So at 99.99% confidence we can then show a token inkling of concern, maybe even turning off a few lights not in use just to show we care, after the train of destruction has left the station, and positive feedbacks of methane release from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates have kicked in with a vengeance, and tremendously greater harms and deaths are in the pipes for 100,000 years. Another benefit of waiting until we have exceeded that tipping point (maybe in some 20 years) is that we can then blame it on nature, not us, since the greater GHG releases will be coming from those positive feedbacks. We can then be totally satisfied that we are not to blame . Nice.

 

[pnewton]

What instruction are you referring to? If you have magisterial teaching from the Church which states that we are required to accept Global Warming as part of the deposit of Faith please share it.

I never said that we are required to accept Global Warning. (it kind of begs to be asked, “require for what?”)

Actually, it appears to be you who slipped the word change in.

Yep. I lost track of the conversation. I will start from scratch.

The idea that Catholics are not supposed to privately interepret Church teaching is not anything I have ever heard, nor can I picture how that would work. I mean, don’t we interpret everything we hear as a part of listening and processing information? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.

BTW - I actually do follow the instructions of my bishops and all church leaders. It really isn’t that hard. We are asked to do so little. Sheep that do not pay attention to the shepherd are likely to meet misfortune.

 

[Ender]

I see you slipped in a word change. I said “teaching”. The previous poster said “teaching.” You changed that to “instruction”.

We have no teaching from the church if teaching is understood to refer to doctrine and not judgment.

pnewton:

Do you realize that when we define instruction from the Church…

This was the comment I was responding to. I used the word you used.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So the Holy Father’s World Day of Peace messages (most notably the ones in 1990 and 2010) and everything else they say, and the US Bishops’ statements are just personal opinion one can totally ignore and reject out-of-hand…

That isn’t what is being claimed but it seems you phrase the debate in such stark terms because otherwise your position is not defensible. Either the comments from the pope and some bishops are prudential or they are doctrinal and no case whatever can be made that they are doctrinal. Given that they are in fact prudential then, yes, we are allowed to disagree with them … which is a far cry from saying we can totally ignore and reject them out of hand. *Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)

… along with the OP message that Bishop Stephen Blaire wrote on behalf of the US Bishops at the request of Cardinal Dolan

This is another over the top generalization inasmuch as no bishop can speak for another. Whatever Bishop Blair wrote pertains to him alone unless given specific endorsement by each individual bishop. It should be rather apparent that if there was a church doctrine on the subject, Cardinal Dolan would have been perfectly capable of citing it himself.

And we are down to the 9 commandments – “thou shalt not kill” being just too hard to follow.

This doesn’t merit a response.

So I guess it’s fine to consider JPII and BXVI and the US bishops to be a bunch of evil-doers in cahoots with the conspiracy of 2000 climate scientists to perpetrate fraud on the world.

Or this.

Or complete idiots, lacking in all wisdom …

Or this.
Or much of anything else.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

We have no teaching from the church if teaching is understood to refer to doctrine and not judgment.

I would point to:

In God’s plan man and woman have the vocation of “subduing” the earth as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator “who loves everything that exists,” to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them. - CCC #373

Pope Benedict
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20121208_xlvi-world-day-peace_en.html

Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us. For this reason, it is imperative that mankind renew and strengthen “that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html
In my Encyclical Caritas in Veritate,I noted that integral human development is closely linked to the obligations which flow from man’s relationship with the natural environment. The environment must be seen as God’s gift to all people, and the use we make of it entails a shared responsibility for all humanity, especially the poor and future generations

*To face this crisis, peacemakers are called to work together in a spirit of solidarity, from the local to the international level, with the aim of enabling farmers, especially in small rural holdings, to carry out their activity in a dignified and sustainable way from the social, environmental and economic points of view. *

Here is the website for the Environmental Justice Program. It mostly contains instructions that apply on to the United States only

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/environmental-justice-program/index.cfm

Actually, this whole papal address speaks to the environment. 35 matches!
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

 

[Ender]

In thinking about the relation between the church and the theory of AGW it might be useful to reflect on the church’s actions during the Galileo incident. The pope’s treatment of Galileo was improper and I do not defend that, but the church’s position on his theory was in fact the correct one. What she said initially was not that his theory was wrong but that he could not teach it as fact since in fact he couldn’t prove that it was true. If we apply the same standard to AGW then the church would clearly take the same position: if the theory cannot be proven to be valid there can be no question of the church obliging us to accept it as true. Given that Galileo’s theories contained errors the church’s (initial) position was clearly the proper one to take.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

In thinking about the relation between the church and the theory of AGW it might be useful to reflect on the church’s actions during the Galileo incident.

No thank you. People have been using Galileo, or whatever is convenient, to shut the Church up for generations. If you do not want to listen, then don’t. I will not abandon so much of what the Church teaches over the vastly over-rated and misunderstood Galileo affair.

 

[Ender]

I would point to: …

Well I never disputed that the church has doctrines and does in fact teach us. I thought it was obvious I was referring to a doctrine on global warming, something by the way which none of your references reference. Everyone accepts that we are called not to misuse the Earth; that point is not being disputed. What we are disputing is whether the introduction of large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is actually changing the climate in harmful ways and on that point the church is absolutely silent - as she should be inasmuch as this is a purely scientific question.

Here is the website for the Environmental Justice Program. It mostly contains instructions that apply on to the United States only

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/environmental-justice-program/index.cfm

This is another indication of the prudential nature of these comments. Church instructions apply world wide.

Ender

 

[jwinch2]

No thank you. People have been using Galileo, or whatever is convenient, to shut the Church up for generations. If you do not want to listen, then don’t. I will not abandon so much of what the Church teaches over the vastly over-rated and misunderstood Galileo affair.

A better example might be to consider Church position on evolution. The Church has not specifically endorsed evolution, despite far more clear scientific support than exists for global warming. The strongest statements I have seen on the matter are that the theory of evolution does not contradict Church teaching. However, nowhere that I have seen does the Church require assent or dissent from the theory of evolution.

Perhaps it is not a good example, but it is what comes to mind when I see this. I honestly cannot see the Church at anytime formally endorsing something such as this and requiring Catholics to assent to it as doctrine.

 

[jwinch2]

So the Holy Father’s World Day of Peace messages (most notably the ones in 1990 and 2010) and everything else they say, and the US Bishops’ statements are just personal opinion one can totally ignore and reject out-of-hand, along with the OP message that Bishop Stephen Blaire wrote on behalf of the US Bishops at the request of Cardinal Dolan (see the OP message - usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/upload/Letter-to-Bicameral-Task-Force-on-Climate-Change-2013-02-21.pdf ) And we are down to the 9 commandments – “thou shalt not kill” being just too hard to follow.

So I guess it’s fine to consider JPII and BXVI and the US bishops to be a bunch of evil-doers in cahoots with the conspiracy of 2000 climate scientists to perpetrate fraud on the world. Or complete idiots, lacking in all wisdom when they express concern over what 98% of climate scientists are saying – that GW is real and harmful and will be much more harmful for 1000s of years if we pursue our current business-as-usual path.

I guess only when science reaches 99.99% confidence on GW might one consider looking into the issue. (Science reached 95% confidence by 1995 and has become stronger and more robust ever since; and the greenhouse effect theory based on the laws of physics has been around for over 100 years, and is the only thing that explains why earth is 32C warmer than it should be and the more extreme levels of many of the past warmings & coolings, than can be accounted for simply by solar irradiance.)

So at 99.99% confidence we can then show a token inkling of concern, maybe even turning off a few lights not in use just to show we care, after the train of destruction has left the station, and positive feedbacks of methane release from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates have kicked in with a vengeance, and tremendously greater harms and deaths are in the pipes for 100,000 years. Another benefit of waiting until we have exceeded that tipping point (maybe in some 20 years) is that we can then blame it on nature, not us, since the greater GHG releases will be coming from those positive feedbacks. We can then be totally satisfied that we are not to blame . Nice.

There is little in your post which merits a comment at all. To the extent that you continue to put words in other person’s mouths and accuse them of dissent from Church doctrine, ignoring the 10 commandments, etc. I will not engage in further discussion with you on those issues. I will merely remind you that the Church does not get to invent new doctrines out of thin air. She receives doctrine through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and interprets them authoritatively through the Magisterium.

To the extent that you continue to suggest that the science is 95% settled, I will point out that when researchers say that they have a 95% confidence in a situation, they are referring to a criterion alpha value of p=0.05. This means that, given the same situation, the same process, methods, statistical treatments, etc. they are 95% sure they would get the same result. In no way does this mean they are 95% sure they answered the question correctly. The model they used, the methods of data collection, their choice of statistical treatments, etc. could be entirely wrong, and they could still have 95% confidence in their results, because all it means is that if they did the exact same things in the same way, they are 95% sure they would get the same outcome. The reality is that those who say otherwise are guilty of misinterpretations and over-generalizations which are not reflective of how research or statistical analysis works.

 

[pnewton]

The Church has not specifically endorsed evolution, despite far more clear scientific support than exists for global warming.

You think? That truly is opinion.

Here is a question. In light of the possibility of global warming causing suffering into the next few generations, why would we want to put more CO2 in the air than necessary? Is there any reason to be pro-pollution? WHich of the seven points deserves a hrumph?