S
spunjalebi
Guest
Before anyone thinks I’m going to go off into some tree-hugger tirade, I would like to mention a few things:
osjspm.org/stewardship_of_creation.aspx
I read this before making this posting.
I think we can come to an agreement that the Church teaches that stewardship means taking responsibility for our actions which contribute to poor environmental standards. What I have to ask is, why are so many Catholics against issues of environmentalism?
Here at CAF, I see mockery toward “carbon footprints” and “climate change,” yet no one can really back up their claims. I will admit right now that the information surrounding global warming/climate change has been controversial at best; such as with the infamous “hockey stick” along with the use of computer models. However, that does not dismiss the fact that when we throw away garbage on the side of the road we are littering and contributing to a mess; when we decide that we can throw away pop cans in a garbage instead of taking the extra minute or so to put it in the recycling bin we are contributing to a mess; and when we do not support laws which are intended to protect human health by conserving the environment, we are basically saying it’s okay to full our air with smog, nevermind the plethora of research which shows that poor air and water quality plays a role in poor prenatal and postnatal development. As a side note, I am well aware of how complex and controversial laws about the environment can get. I live in MN where at the last election, it was a huge uproar about whether or not to vote for the “Clean, Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment.”
I also understand that environmental causes can get to the extreme where it becomes earth-worship, and humanity as a whole is “bad,” and in order to solve that problem we have to look at things from a “population” standpoint. I’ve done some research and have found that many of the issues dealing with population aren’t as forthright as we may believe; for instance in Africa where the population argument stands, we hear arguments that their population is the reason why people are starving and dying. Well, turns out many African countries have corrupt governments who purposefully divert resources such as food, clean water, and medicine, to fund civil wars or support other causes at the expense of citizens.
I think we can also agree that as Catholics, humanity is not “bad,” and we should not support tactics which are immoral to control population, such as birth control, in order to further environmental causes. And I also think we can agree that life is precious, and because of its preciousness we should strive to provide the necessities to someone so they can live in a healthy manner. Agreed?
This is the way I see it…it makes no sense for me to call myself “pro-life” if I am not going to support the causes or laws which allow for life to exist in an environment which is not healthy. It honestly abhors me to think that one day I will be carrying a baby while smog is being wafted into the air my way. I don’t care what percentage of the smog has toxic chemicals, to me smog is smog and if I’m carrying a baby I don’t the smog near me, period.
So now that I truly have gone into a tree-hugger tirade, I am just wondering-- why is following this part of social teaching so difficult for people? Is it because this issue has become so politicized and taken away from the scientific world? But if we don’t mention it in politics, how can we ever expect larger laws to be implemented? We are called to be good stewards of our bodies, which are temples-- so why would it be difficult for us to be steward of the earth, which provides the resources for us to care for our temples?
osjspm.org/stewardship_of_creation.aspx
I read this before making this posting.
I think we can come to an agreement that the Church teaches that stewardship means taking responsibility for our actions which contribute to poor environmental standards. What I have to ask is, why are so many Catholics against issues of environmentalism?
Here at CAF, I see mockery toward “carbon footprints” and “climate change,” yet no one can really back up their claims. I will admit right now that the information surrounding global warming/climate change has been controversial at best; such as with the infamous “hockey stick” along with the use of computer models. However, that does not dismiss the fact that when we throw away garbage on the side of the road we are littering and contributing to a mess; when we decide that we can throw away pop cans in a garbage instead of taking the extra minute or so to put it in the recycling bin we are contributing to a mess; and when we do not support laws which are intended to protect human health by conserving the environment, we are basically saying it’s okay to full our air with smog, nevermind the plethora of research which shows that poor air and water quality plays a role in poor prenatal and postnatal development. As a side note, I am well aware of how complex and controversial laws about the environment can get. I live in MN where at the last election, it was a huge uproar about whether or not to vote for the “Clean, Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment.”
I also understand that environmental causes can get to the extreme where it becomes earth-worship, and humanity as a whole is “bad,” and in order to solve that problem we have to look at things from a “population” standpoint. I’ve done some research and have found that many of the issues dealing with population aren’t as forthright as we may believe; for instance in Africa where the population argument stands, we hear arguments that their population is the reason why people are starving and dying. Well, turns out many African countries have corrupt governments who purposefully divert resources such as food, clean water, and medicine, to fund civil wars or support other causes at the expense of citizens.
I think we can also agree that as Catholics, humanity is not “bad,” and we should not support tactics which are immoral to control population, such as birth control, in order to further environmental causes. And I also think we can agree that life is precious, and because of its preciousness we should strive to provide the necessities to someone so they can live in a healthy manner. Agreed?
This is the way I see it…it makes no sense for me to call myself “pro-life” if I am not going to support the causes or laws which allow for life to exist in an environment which is not healthy. It honestly abhors me to think that one day I will be carrying a baby while smog is being wafted into the air my way. I don’t care what percentage of the smog has toxic chemicals, to me smog is smog and if I’m carrying a baby I don’t the smog near me, period.
So now that I truly have gone into a tree-hugger tirade, I am just wondering-- why is following this part of social teaching so difficult for people? Is it because this issue has become so politicized and taken away from the scientific world? But if we don’t mention it in politics, how can we ever expect larger laws to be implemented? We are called to be good stewards of our bodies, which are temples-- so why would it be difficult for us to be steward of the earth, which provides the resources for us to care for our temples?