When does environmentalism go too far?

[bsm138]

Our homily this morning centered on many things that caused a stir among some of the laity.

The priest harkened back to the “fact” of climate change and used the Pope’s chemistry degree as justification of proof. As if the ‘belief’ in man made climate change was somehow a dogma of the church.

He also used the ‘profit-driven economy’ line numerous times. Profits in and of themselves are not and can not be immoral.

I’m sorry but when told in a homily that to be a good Catholic I need to reduce my carbon footprint and when I am told in a homily that a scientific question is settled fact I think a line has been crossed.

1. What to do about this at the parish level

And

1. What is the apologetic understanding for not having to agree or believe everything a priest says… Or disagreeing with the premise or message of a homily.

 

[Zadeth]

I misread. Sorry.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Our homily this morning centered on many things that caused a stir among some of the laity.

The priest harkened back to the “fact” of climate change and used the Pope’s chemistry degree as justification of proof. As if the ‘belief’ in man made climate change was somehow a dogma of the church.

He also used the ‘profit-driven economy’ line numerous times. Profits in and of themselves are not and can not be immoral.

I’m sorry but when told in a homily that to be a good Catholic I need to reduce my carbon footprint and when I am told in a homily that a scientific question is settled fact I think a line has been crossed.

1. What to do about this at the parish level

And

1. What is the apologetic understanding for not having to agree or believe everything a priest says… Or disagreeing with the premise or message of a homily.

The priest might have exaggerated smth.

However, I cannot understand people who claim “not to believe” in climate change.

Climate change is not a matter of “belief”, it is a matter of facts, science and expertise. Ultimately, this is a matter of survival.

Not listening to climatologists might be a really bad idea in the long term.

I also think it wise that he reminded that profit is not the final goal of a Christian.

Encyclical “Vix pervenit” (1745) contained the Church doctrine of usury, which stands firm in theory, although its application largely depends on one’s conscience nowadays. newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

 

[bsm138]

The homily was focused on the “fact” that humans are for sure causing harm to the Earth with emphasis on “profit seekers”

Then the disingenuous “pope has a chemistry degree so he knows”

The priest injected his personal politics to distort a message. Calling on individuals to be concerned with their carbon footprint… That’s not Catholicism.

 

[estesbob]

The homily was focused on the “fact” that humans are for sure causing harm to the Earth with emphasis on “profit seekers”

Then the disingenuous “pope has a chemistry degree so he knows”

The priest injected his personal politics to distort a message. Calling on individuals to be concerned with their carbon footprint… That’s not Catholicism.

It seems that many like your priest failed to take into account the economic effects of what they are proposing. If we impose the “solutions” suggested by climate alarmists we will do great damage to the poor & needy. the fact your priest has bought into the myth that the holy father has a chemistry degree leads one to believe he has not researched this issue very much . Did he offer any specific solutions?

I am also Curious as to whether this ppriest gave a sermon about the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage . ?

 

[pianistclare]

The homily was focused on the “fact” that humans are for sure causing harm to the Earth with emphasis on “profit seekers”

Then the disingenuous “pope has a chemistry degree so he knows”

The priest injected his personal politics to distort a message. Calling on individuals to be concerned with their carbon footprint… That’s not Catholicism.

So it’s your position that big business does not at all negatively impact the planet?
No pollution, no deforestation, no overuse of pesticides that cause illness and disease?

Really?
Wow.

Pope Francis is rightly getting people to think about what they really need and what is really not necessary to live well. Good stewardship of the earth. God didn’t give it to us damaged. But we trash it all the time.
How is it that when political pundits and Oprah say these things people sit up and notice, but when the Pope who has a clear grasp on what Christ wants for us speaks…all of sudden he’s an alarmist?

We would all do well to take stock of the waste and trash we produce and create as a result of the “things” we feel we can’t live without.

Of course the consumer demands all this “stuff”. But we don’t HAVE to. We are called to be removed from material things. It’s hard. No one says a person can’t be profitable. There are lots of very profitable companies that manufacture responsibly.

 

[GEddie]

Self denial and “making do with less” might be good for the soul, as well as for that abusive ‘parent’ known as “Mother Nature,” but does not create wealth, which is what is needed if the poor are to be helped.

Of course climate change is true. The climate is constantly changing and has always done so. Upper NA was once covered by glaciers. They are gone. The Vikings once farmed Greenland. They too are gone.

What is not established is that catastrophic changes are occurring strictly because of human activity, which must be reined in for the common good.

Too many in the Church are accepting that as truth.

IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[bsm138]

What’s the teaching for when you disagree with a priest’s homily?

 

[estesbob]

What’s the teaching for when you disagree with a priest’s homily?

Need to reduce our carbon footprint. I believe the evidence that CO2 causes global warming is sketchy to say the least. On the list of things that Catholics should be concerned about I would say reducing our carbon footprint would be probably the last . Again I would like to know whether this priest gave a homily about the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage or to see you when you speak on political issues when there is a far left agenda behind them?

 

[pianistclare]

What’s the teaching for when you disagree with a priest’s homily?

Um, humility?
I do know that I would not presume to criticize a good priest just because I don’t think he’s a great homilist. Even when a homily is not great, I can always find something to reflect on to enrich my prayer life.

In other words…take some time to reflect before you dismiss a priest out of hand.

 

[slh3016]

What’s the teaching for when you disagree with a priest’s homily?

Find a new parish…

I say that tongue-in-cheek as a Protestant in RCIA who frequently “church hopped” in my past when I didn’t like what the pastor said.

But, FWIW, I do agree with you on this issue. It’s the one issue that has caused my husband to almost bail out of RCIA. We’ve talked with many different priests, laity, etc. and the information we have unanimously been given is that we should consider the Pope’s words on doing what is in our power to protect the environment and love the poor but that his statements on climate change are NOT infallible.

 

[pnewton]

1. What to do about this at the parish level

I do not see what there is do be done, or why anything needs to be done, on a parish level. He is the priest there. He is not far out of line with the latest encyclical of the Holy Father. If you do not agree with him on some points, simply do not agree with him. Sometimes we get too enthusiastic about wanting everyone to agree with what we think. So he believes Man is causing global warming reaches a level of fact. There is nothing immoral about such a position. He might be correct, or not, but such a belief is not in contradiction with the Church’s teaching. Using the theory of global warming as a part of global warming to teach about responsible stewardship of the Earth is pretty much what the Holy Father did world wide. It is hard to argue with the concept, even if the priest overstates the case.

I have often disagreed with things my priest has said, sometimes I am certain I know more, or know something more accurately, in certain points. I simply do not let an erroneous point detract from the general message of the homily, or the instruction that I am receiving.

 

[pianistclare]

I do not see what there is do be done, or why anything needs to be done, on a parish level. He is the priest there. He is not far out of line with the latest encyclical of the Holy Father. If you do not agree with him on some points, simply do not agree with him. Sometimes we get too enthusiastic about wanting everyone to agree with what we think. So he believes Man is causing global warming reaches a level of fact. There is nothing immoral about such a position. He might be correct, or not, but such a belief is not in contradiction with the Church’s teaching. Using the theory of global warming as a part of global warming to teach about responsible stewardship of the Earth is pretty much what the Holy Father did world wide. It is hard to argue with the concept, even if the priest overstates the case.

I have often disagreed with things my priest has said, sometimes I am certain I know more, or know something more accurately, in certain points. I simply do not let an erroneous point detract from the general message of the homily, or the instruction that I am receiving.

Well stated, yes!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Environmentalism goes too far when it is placed above humanity. This is most evidently seen when people call for population controls for the sake of the environment, such as abortion or laws regarding how many children a family can have. When people advocate for increased access to birth control as a way to limit the population for the sake of the environment then it has gone too far. When people take perverse pleasure in the deaths of others because the environment will benefit then it has gone too far.

When people say that the earth would have been better off if people had never come about then it has gone too far.