What is the Church's official teaching on the enviroment and climate change?

[Rocky24]

Have any Popes in the past issued an encyclical or is it written in the catechism? Is it a sin to not do anything about it? Is ‘Stewardship’ an official Catholic teaching?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Have any Popes in the past issued an encyclical or is it written in the catechism? Is it a sin to not do anything about it? Is ‘Stewardship’ an official Catholic teaching?

Stewardship in general is a Catholic teaching, but how that concept applies to specific cases is not spelled out specifically. The Catholic Church does not take a binding position on the science involved.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here are a few sources for starters (the actual statements get into the subject more deeply, and approach the matter from a truly Catholic perspective, even warning about going to extremes):

Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone…The…‘greenhouse effect’ has now reached crisis proportions…”
–Pope John Paul II, “Peace With All Creation,” 1990
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation…Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…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…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change”
– Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” 2010, vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

“We believe our response to global climate change should be a sign of our respect for God’s creation”
–U.S. Bishops, 2001, “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good,” U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

“Even though energy resources literally fuel our economy…we need to ask about ways we can conserve energy, prevent pollution, and live more simply.”
–U.S. Bishops, “Global Climate Change”

"…our response to the challenge of climate change must be rooted in the virtue of prudence…[M]ost experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are…contributing to a warming of the earth’s climate…Consequently, it seems prudent…to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future.
– U.S. Bishops, “Global Climate Change”

”We must therefore encourage and support the ‘ecological conversion’ which in recent decades has made humanity more sensitive to the catastrophe to which it has been heading. Man is no longer the Creator’s ‘steward’, but an autonomous despot, who is finally beginning to understand that he must stop at the edge of the abyss."
–Pope John Paul II, “God Made Man The Steward of Creation” 2001, vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud20010117en.html

“Today the great gift of God’s Creation is exposed to serious dangers and lifestyles which can degrade it. Environmental pollution is making particularly unsustainable the lives of the poor of the world … we must pledge ourselves to take care of creation and to share its resources in solidarity.”
– Pope Benedict XVI, catholicsandclimatechange.org/coalition_activities/covenant.html

Hope this helps. And bless you for asking.

 

[Rocky24]

Thanks so much! I wasn’t sure on what the Church said on this. God Bless You!

 

[Ender]

Have any Popes in the past issued an encyclical or is it written in the catechism? Is it a sin to not do anything about it? Is ‘Stewardship’ an official Catholic teaching?

There is not and cannot be a Church doctrine on climate change. That is a purely scientific question on which the Church has no basis for speaking. She can no more have doctrines on this topic than she could have one on the Big Bang theory.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

There is not and cannot be a Church doctrine on climate change. That is a purely scientific question on which the Church has no basis for speaking. She can no more have doctrines on this topic than she could have one on the Big Bang theory.

Ender

There’s actually no need for a separate Church doctrine on climate change. “Thou shalt not kill” is plenty enough for Catholics and people of many other religions around the world to mitigate climate change. In addition, God has commanded us to “keep the garden.” Of course, there was also the issue about the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but, well, you know how we are…

What the U.S. Bishops have called for is prudence on the matter of climate change, which is within their auspicies (see usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-a-plea-for-dialogue-prudence-and-the-common-good.cfm ). They are telling us that whether we accept or doubt what 97% of climate scientists are claiming (that anthropogenic climate change is happening and could be quite harmful – the other 3% claiming it is happening but not much and won’t be so dangerous), we should be prudent and mitigate it.

They also say they are not policy-makers and do not suggest how we should do this, but I’d suggest NOT climbing up ladders upside-down, suffocating and sweltering in the dark, holding your breath until you die, selling your soul to the devil, burning all your money in a big pile (oops, that actually contributes to CC), or allowing those huge hordes of neopagan-pantheist-atheist-communist-baby-killers we meet everyday to take over the world and put us in chain-gangs.

There are myriads of solutions that save money or don’t cost in the short or long run (without lowering productivity or living standards), that also solve many other problems, and that are good in many other ways, such as good for the econoomy, and for our health and spiritual life (like abstinence from meat on Fridays during Lent, etc). I’d suggest choosing among those things. Then after 20 years of implementing these and reducing our GHGs by 30 to 60% (which these types of cost-effective measures can accomplish), then we can think about perhaps a tiny bit of sacrifice, if that amount of reduction is not enough…or maybe new tech may have developed that allows our high-on-the-hog party to continue without having to sacrifice anything at all, not even one penny.

Furthermore, astrophysicists, geologists, engineers, nuclear physicists, dentists, oil magnates, statisticians, potty peers, retired scientists and engineers, and anonymous bloggers (including me) who are not working climate scientists don’t have any say in climate change science either.

The bishops have said it right – we rely on the actual experts and follow prudence in the matter.

 

[Ender]

There’s actually no need for a separate Church doctrine on climate change. “Thou shalt not kill” is plenty enough for Catholics and people of many other religions around the world to mitigate climate change.

You seem unable even to recognize the possibility that someone could actually doubt that AGW is real. It also appears you fail to understand the role intent plays in determining whether an action is moral.

I don’t believe man is responsible for global warming. I do believe that many of the proposals for fighting this non-existent problem could have catastrophic effects, especially on poor nations. Given what I believe to be true, if I sided with the AGW crowd and supported their proposed solutions despite believing that it would be disastrous to millions … then I would be committing a sin. That is, if I supported your position - believing what I believe to be true - that would be a sin just as it would be a sin on your part to support my position believing what you believe.

Supporting or opposing the mitigation of global warming is neither moral nor immoral, it is the reason behind our choices that determines the morality of our actions.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

You seem unable even to recognize the possibility that someone could actually doubt that AGW is real. It also appears you fail to understand the role intent plays in determining whether an action is moral.

I don’t believe man is responsible for global warming. I do believe that many of the proposals for fighting this non-existent problem could have catastrophic effects, especially on poor nations. Given what I believe to be true, if I sided with the AGW crowd and supported their proposed solutions despite believing that it would be disastrous to millions … then I would be committing a sin. That is, if I supported your position - believing what I believe to be true - that would be a sin just as it would be a sin on your part to support my position believing what you believe.

Supporting or opposing the mitigation of global warming is neither moral nor immoral, it is the reason behind our choices that determines the morality of our actions.

Ender

That’s true. And I do believe you sincerely disbelieve AGW is real or dangerous, so if we annihilate all life on earth due to our contributions to AGW, you’re off the hook, and I’ll see you in heaven, assuming all else is okay

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Supporting or opposing the mitigation of global warming is neither moral nor immoral…

That’s true.

Good, that’s the only point I’ve been trying to make. It is reasonable to claim that my position opposing the theory of AGW is scientific nonsense but it is not valid to claim that the Church has any position on the subject. One of us is surely wrong as to the science involved but there is no moral difference between our positions.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Good, that’s the only point I’ve been trying to make. It is reasonable to claim that my position opposing the theory of AGW is scientific nonsense but it is not valid to claim that the Church has any position on the subject. One of us is surely wrong as to the science involved but there is no moral difference between our positions.

Ender

Except if I’m wrong and you are right, I have only done sensible things to mitigate, reducing our GHGs by more than 60% below our 1990 emissions, that also reduce other environmental and other problems. We have also saved $1000s, without lowering our living standard while doing so.

However, if I am right and you are wrong, then you would have been contributing to something that (eventually over the centuries) annihilates a large portion of humanity and the rest of God’s creation, while also failing to mitigate other problems. It still would not mean negative supernatural repercussions, since you and many many others sincerely disbelieve AGW, but it would be sad, even tragic, nevertheless.

This is why I (and the popes and bishops) suggest mitigating AGW even when skeptical of it. It just makes sense and cents to do so for a variety of reasons.

A few AGW skeptics do point out that they are doing all sorts of good environmental things (that would also mitigate AGW, if it were true). This is really an excellent stance for AGW skeptics…and it will only save them money and help the economy.

 

[Ender]

Except if I’m wrong and you are right, I have only done sensible things to mitigate, reducing our GHGs by more than 60% below our 1990 emissions, that also reduce other environmental and other problems.

Disbelieving in AGW is not the same as disbelieving in conservation but the belief that the actions of individuals will have any useful effect on reducing GHGs seems more than a bit farfetched. Virtually no country reached its Kyoto target. Spain has severely damaged her economy by going green because the cost of that decision has been exorbitant. There have been major economic dislocations in most countries - including our own - that have pursued renewable energy without regard to costs. Economic damage is a reality. AGW damage is a theory.

Ender

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Actually, the misguided AGW “theory” has already caused human suffering and likely death…We are burning corn in our gas tanks for NO GOOD REASON, reducing our gasoline mileage, damaging our engines, and removing corn from the worldwide FOOD SUPPLY.

Misguided and deadly.

 

[Calliso]

Actually, the misguided AGW “theory” has already caused human suffering and likely death…We are burning corn in our gas tanks for NO GOOD REASON, reducing our gasoline mileage, damaging our engines, and removing corn from the worldwide FOOD SUPPLY.

Misguided and deadly.

Actually that is not the fault of the theory. That is the result of bad decisons. I mean nothing in the theory of AGW says thou must use corn as fuel! Also trust me if you look at the actual science behind the theory of AGW you will find it is not misguided. But if you are just looking at sites that specifically argue against AGW or get you info from places like fox news of course you are going to get the impression that it is misguided. Really though donlt get me wrong I once was skeptical of AGW as well. I mean the whole idea that man could have a huge effect on the climate seemed a little silly. I mean I did not reject the theory completely I thought humans were probably having a little to maybe some effect but that it was mostly natural. It wasn;t until I basically stumbled upon the realclimate blog one day and started reading that I learned more.

 

[Ender]

Actually that is not the fault of the theory. That is the result of bad decisons.

This is true as far as it goes but it completely misses the point that decisions resulting in harmful side effects are inevitable. That’s the reason they are opposed by those who believe that AGW is wrong. If, as we all agree, the decision to use corn as fuel was a bad one why hasn’t it been rescinded? Quite clearly it is because the true believers feel that the bad consequences are part of the price that has to be paid to “save the planet.” There are no AGW mitigation strategies that aren’t harmful … and the theory is responsible for all of them that are tried since that is what is driving the effort to solve a nonexistent problem.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Disbelieving in AGW is not the same as disbelieving in conservation but the belief that the actions of individuals will have any useful effect on reducing GHGs seems more than a bit farfetched…

I look at it in spiritual calculus. Mother Teresa when speaking about doing good for the poor said it doesn’t matter how small your good deed is, your love makes it infinite.

So same way I carry a hankie to wipe hands in public restrooms, and take the extra step to take off labels from cans so I can recycle both separately. Over many decades little things eventually add up even in material, “this worldly” terms, but I hope God is please with whatever teeny tiny thing I can do for Him, tho it be a drop in His vast ocean. And when I backslide, I trust in God to pick me up like a loving Father and put me back on my little baby feet again…

 

[lynnvinc]

Actually, the misguided AGW “theory” has already caused human suffering and likely death…We are burning corn in our gas tanks for NO GOOD REASON, reducing our gasoline mileage, damaging our engines, and removing corn from the worldwide FOOD SUPPLY.

Misguided and deadly.

We all wish to do the right thing. I remember a woman in our env group some 20 years ago talking about getting a wood-buring stove, thinking it a good env thing to do, and the environmentalist there (who had her degree in env sci) told her the local pollution from it would cause harm.

I just got a Volt without looking into the battery issue, and right after found there is some harm in the resource extraction for the battery, and am just hoping that driving 90%+ on wind-powered electricity (offsetting local, regional, and global fossil fuel pollution) will outweigh the harms.

Someone wrote a book, WHY THINGS BITE BACK, and I suppose you’ve seen the movie THE JERK.

We need to do our best, learn and use our brains, and be flexible enough to give up bad ideas.

The first time I heard about “bio-fuels” some 15 or 20 years ago I thought, oh, no – food-to-fuels. Here I am trying to reduce drought famine in Africa by reducing my GHGs; why would I want to take food out of people’s mouths so I can drive around in my hotrod?

It was a no-brainer for me, about the biofuel harms, tho I’ve heard 2nd generation biofuels hold some promise, at least of being one solution among many many.

 

[lynnvinc]

If, as we all agree, the decision to use corn as fuel was a bad one why hasn’t it been rescinded?

I don’t think it was ever the environmentalists who proposed it in the first place – at least not grass-roots environmentalists.

Ag-biz is a very very powerful lobby in DC, and add to that the petrochemical fertilizer/pesticide industry that has a stake in ag-biz. Does Monsanto ring any bells – I shiver just to mention them; they’ll be after me with lawsuits in the $millions and sue me into eternal poverty for suggesting they might be involved in something bad and wrong. So let it be known, Monsanto good. Very good.

There’s a snowball’s chance that biofuels and their subsidies will be rescinded.

 

[Calliso]

I don’t think it was ever the environmentalists who proposed it in the first place – at least not grass-roots environmentalists.

Ag-biz is a very very powerful lobby in DC, and add to that the petrochemical fertilizer/pesticide industry that has a stake in ag-biz. Does Monsanto ring any bells – I shiver just to mention them; they’ll be after me with lawsuits in the $millions and sue me into eternal poverty for suggesting they might be involved in something bad and wrong. So let it be known, Monsanto good. Very good.

There’s a snowball’s chance that biofuels and their subsidies will be rescinded.

Yeah this is probably at least part of the truth.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We all wish to do the right thing. I remember a woman in our env group some 20 years ago talking about getting a wood-buring stove, thinking it a good env thing to do, and the environmentalist there (who had her degree in env sci) told her the local pollution from it would cause harm.

I just got a Volt without looking into the battery issue, and right after found there is some harm in the resource extraction for the battery, and am just hoping that driving 90%+ on wind-powered electricity (offsetting local, regional, and global fossil fuel pollution) will outweigh the harms.

Someone wrote a book, WHY THINGS BITE BACK, and I suppose you’ve seen the movie THE JERK.

**We need to do our best, learn and use our brains, and be flexible enough to give up bad ideas.
**
The first time I heard about “bio-fuels” some 15 or 20 years ago I thought, oh, no – food-to-fuels. Here I am trying to reduce drought famine in Africa by reducing my GHGs; why would I want to take food out of people’s mouths so I can drive around in my hotrod?

It was a no-brainer for me, about the biofuel harms, tho I’ve heard 2nd generation biofuels hold some promise, at least of being one solution among many many.

You write some very interesting things.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Actually that is not the fault of the theory. That is the result of bad decisons. I mean nothing in the theory of AGW says thou must use corn as fuel! Also trust me if you look at the actual science behind the theory of AGW you will find it is not misguided. But if you are just looking at sites that specifically argue against AGW or get you info from places like fox news of course you are going to get the impression that it is misguided. Really though donlt get me wrong I once was skeptical of AGW as well. I mean the whole idea that man could have a huge effect on the climate seemed a little silly. I mean I did not reject the theory completely I thought humans were probably having a little to maybe some effect but that it was mostly natural. It wasn;t until I basically stumbled upon the realclimate blog one day and started reading that I learned more.

I know, right? Whenever I read the Huffington Post, I learn SO much, it makes my head explode.