Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[KSU]

This is the last time I will respond to the AGW issue because it’s far off topic.

                                           Part 1

kama3: So if you don’t know what happens with all this anthropogenic CO2, how do you know that it doesn’t produce global warming?

KSU: I don’t. The point is that neither you nor the pro-AGW scientists (especially the grant-hungry charlatans) nor the pro-AGW politicians wanting trillion$ in new taxes to stop AGW can prove that it does cause AGW, but it sure doesn’t stop you or them from saying it does.
It’s the same tactic used by atheists and agenda-driven scientists who shout from the rooftops that everything came from nothing, despite the fact that actual science, mathematics, philosophy, and common sense say otherwise.

kama3: Svante Arrhenius has derived AGW from basic physics a century before any such effect has been observed. That’s scientific method at it’s finest.

KSU: No, it is not. The scientific method at it’s finest uses cause and effect to prove a hypothesis, especially by letting reality (e.g.,“Paleoclimatic history” which saw GW without man-made pollution) contradict theory. But the more important point is that Arrhenius did not prove AGW; THERE IS SIMPLY NO AGREEMENT ABOUT AGW BY RESPECTED SCIENTISTS. Sorry for shouting, but you must admit that the scientific pendulum is swinging back to my position of great doubt.

youtube.com/watch?v=Skf8bpl8WSg

independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42&s=ga

 

[KSU]

Part 2, AGW and the Church

KSU: [A secular state representative to the UN ] is not there to express his private opinions, he’s there to carry out his president’s policy–word for word. A wrong, perhaps undiplomatic word could destabilize peace. That is not strictly [Note, I said STRICTLY] the case with the Vatican’s representative who enjoys a bit more freedom to mix in his personal take on issues of interest to the Church; the pope is far too busy to approve all the speeches of all his hundreds of representatives throughout the world. Sometimes the Church suffers for it.

kama3 re Martino: "Please provide me the link to a Vatican document which states, that the Vatican’s ambassador to the UN expresses his own opinions and not those of his government (=the Pope and his State Secretariat).

KSU: What part of “not strictly the case” don’t you understand? Why would anyone want to debate with a person who changes his debate partner’s words in order to create a straw man to destroy? I never said or even implied that Martino (then acting as the Pope’s UN rep) was free to disregard Vatican policy on the environment, or any other policy, when speaking before the UN. I said he was a bit more free with his words than a secular state rep.
Even so, Martino never said anything in the speech to which you referred whereby it could be said that the Church teaches what lynn (and you?) believes concerning the allegation of significant AGW.

Here is something from CAF on the Holy Father’s take:
QUOTE Part of the Church’s commitment to the environment includes carefully evaluating scientific evidence in light of the benefit for humanity. Consider, for instance, the current debate over global warming. According to some accounts, for the one-year cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol (the proposed worldwide agreement to cut carbon emissions to combat global warming), humanity could provide safe drinking water across the globe in perpetuity. Many people, including concerned scientists and environmentalists, think that Kyoto will provide fairly little benefit considering its cost.

In December 2007, Pope Benedict released a statement on the environment (actually an early version of his 2008 World Day of Peace address) in which he explained that we must not selfishly consider nature “to be at the complete disposal of our own interests,” and we must preserve the earth for future generations. He noted, however, that the international community must base its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement. Always, the simple dignity of human life must come first.

Because the pope did not uncritically accept every assertion of fact set forth by environmentalists, and because he recognized the special need to care for humanity, one account of this speech—which was widely reprinted—called it a “surprise attack” on the theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming. The Daily Mail from London reported: “The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering” (Simon Caldwell, “The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom,” December 13, 2007).

Of course, the Daily Mail article was nonsense. The pope did nothing more than explain the need to examine the evidence and consider the impact on people, including the poor who are often the most severely affected. Rather than embrace this logical advice, some environmentalists were angered because he did not blindly accept their claims. When environmentalism becomes a religion, any departure from the party line becomes heresy. END QUOTE

Here is the whole article:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/should-catholics-be-environmentalists

 

[Neil_Anthony]

OTOH, conservatives are totally sin-free and as spotless as Jesus Himself, and are right on ALL issues - including, global warming is not happening, and if it is, then it’s due to natural causes (and we humans are certainly not killing people through it, esp not the conservatives); and evolution is the figment of some depraved atheist’s mind, created to make everyone atheist; and anyone who believes in it (not conservatives, who are spotless) is surely going to hell.

Is that a good summary of this discussion? I myself wonder why liberals stay in the American Catholic Church, and not get over to the Roman Catholic Church, where they belong (you know how liberal and horrible those Europeans are).

LOL

I think this is why people shouldn’t use the terms liberal and conservative when they mean orthodox and heterodox. On some issues catholic opinion will fall on what is called “the left” in american politics, and on others it will fall on “the right”. And there is room for a lot of different opinions within Catholicism.

The culture here at CAF seems to make the mistake of lumping in orthodoxy with political conservatism. I’m guilty of that too on some issues. But I think you can be an orthodox catholic and be left-leaning in your politics.

But, I don’t someone can be pro-choice and say they’re an orthodox catholic in line with the magesterium. The church has made it pretty clear where we stand on that.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

You have it exactly backwards; liberals ARE the American Catholic Church, but pretend to be in the Roman Catholic Church. They snivel and complain constantly, and try to destroy Church teaching in an attempt to remake the Church in accord with their own proclivties toward sins of the flesh and the world, mostly homosexuality and Socialism.

That’s why this thread exists, and is why the Catholic Church had to start to reform the reform.

American Catholic Church? I had no idea there was another Catholic church. There is only One Church - the Roman Catholic Church. ~There is only one Magesterium, which is what you are supposed to obey, as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is only one Church of Christ - the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, there are ‘liberals’, which is another name for those who hate the RC Church and want to water down every one of its teachings, especially those on morals!! These have infiltrated our beautiful Church and are less honest than Protestants because they wear the title ‘Catholic’ but are anything but!

 

[lynnvinc]

LOL

I think this is why people shouldn’t use the terms liberal and conservative when they mean orthodox and heterodox. On some issues catholic opinion will fall on what is called “the left” in american politics, and on others it will fall on “the right”. And there is room for a lot of different opinions within Catholicism.

The culture here at CAF seems to make the mistake of lumping in orthodoxy with political conservatism. I’m guilty of that too on some issues. But I think you can be an orthodox catholic and be left-leaning in your politics.

But, I don’t someone can be pro-choice and say they’re an orthodox catholic in line with the magesterium. The church has made it pretty clear where we stand on that.

I completely agree.

In fact when I contacted a person promoting a very strict orthodox Catholicism, and asked about Catholic social teachings, he had no problem with them, tho they be much further to the left than American political conservatism, and I would even say, further to the left than political liberalism here in America – tho they might be within European political conservatism…which in my understanding is in line with or perhaps to the left of mainstream American liberalism.

I would also agree that the American brand of liberalism (and that may include some Catholic heterodoxy liberals – as many here point to) – standing up for “reproductive rights” (abortion on demand) – is actually a perverse form of conservatism that arose out of Enlightenment thinking…rights gone amok, without any sense of responsibilities and duties toward others. What happens in such a culture, of which both conservatives and liberals in America partake, is that rights become so salient & duties/responsibilities virtually ignored, and those who are rich and powerful enough get their rights championed as they trampled over (or ignore the plight of) others and their basic rights – like elephants stomping on ants.

The Catholic Church is much more duty/responsibility oriented, other-oriented, social, and socialistic in its emphasis on caring and sharing. In fact Fr. Greeley found in his studies of religion in America (where there could be great influence of individualistic American culture against this Catholic social-orientation) that American Catholics were (still) more communal and social justice oriented than non-Catholics.* In my own studies I’ve also found that Catholics accept AGW and are more liberal than the general population; but that conservative Catholics were slightly more likely to attend church.

I think if the politically conservative, orthodox Catholics were to open their hearts and minds to others more – strive to mitigate AGW, and support gov programs (similar to those in all other developed countries) that would help people so they would feel less likely to need abortions, or gays feeling the need to get married, then not only would the conservative, orthodox Catholics be more in line with Church teachings, but many of the liberal Catholics may be more willing to tow the line on Catholic orthodoxy. It would just be a more beautiful Church that would attract more well-intentioned people, rather than shoo them away by its hypocrisy and lack of caring and sharing.

I think one of the factors that makes some “bleeding heart” Catholics pro-choice and/or for gay rights, is their concern for people being squashed between a rock and a hard place. Let us soften that hard place (the conservatives’ resistence to increasing social programs that can help people in need & raising taxes for these if need be), then more will stand firm with the Rock that is our salvation.

---

Greeley, A.

• 1989 ‘Protestant and Catholic: Is the Analogic Imagination Extinct?’ American Sociological Review 54.4:485-502.
• 1993 ‘Religion and Attitudes toward the Environment.’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32.1:19-28.

 

[KSU]

LOL

I think this is why people shouldn’t use the terms liberal and conservative when they mean orthodox and heterodox. On some issues catholic opinion will fall on what is called “the left” in american politics, and on others it will fall on “the right”. And there is room for a lot of different opinions within Catholicism.

The culture here at CAF seems to make the mistake of lumping in orthodoxy with political conservatism. I’m guilty of that too on some issues. But I think you can be an orthodox catholic and be left-leaning in your politics.

But, I don’t someone can be pro-choice and say they’re an orthodox catholic in line with the magesterium. The church has made it pretty clear where we stand on that.

Of course you are technically correct about the terms orthodox and heterodox. One of my favorite priests used to argue that point on EWTN.

I, too, sometimes use the terms liberal and conservative rather than orthodox and heterodox in a religious debate, but only when my debate partner does so first and I assume he/she is just using shorthand. (You probably know what Coach Woody Hayes is supposed to have told his players about the mistake of assuming).

"Left’ and “right”, as you correctly imply, also are terms that belong to the political realm more so than the religious realm. If all the debaters understand that, however, those terms can have some shorthand value, especially when quotes are used.

All in all, your point is well taken.

 

[KSU]

I completely agree.

In fact when I contacted a person promoting a very strict orthodox Catholicism, and asked about Catholic social teachings, he had no problem with them, tho they be much further to the left than American political conservatism, and I would even say, further to the left than political liberalism here in America – tho they might be within European political conservatism…which in my understanding is in line with or perhaps to the left of mainstream American liberalism.

I would also agree that the American brand of liberalism (and that may include some Catholic heterodoxy liberals – as many here point to) – standing up for “reproductive rights” (abortion on demand) – is actually a perverse form of conservatism that arose out of Enlightenment thinking…rights gone amok, without any sense of responsibilities and duties toward others. What happens in such a culture, of which both conservatives and liberals in America partake, is that rights become so salient & duties/responsibilities virtually ignored, and those who are rich and powerful enough get their rights championed as they trampled over (or ignore the plight of) others and their basic rights – like elephants stomping on ants.

The Catholic Church is much more duty/responsibility oriented, other-oriented, social, and socialistic in its emphasis on caring and sharing. In fact Fr. Greeley found in his studies of religion in America (where there could be great influence of individualistic American culture against this Catholic social-orientation) that American Catholics were (still) more communal and social justice oriented than non-Catholics.* In my own studies I’ve also found that Catholics accept AGW and are more liberal than the general population; but that conservative Catholics were slightly more likely to attend church.

I think if the politically conservative, orthodox Catholics were to open their hearts and minds to others more – strive to mitigate AGW, and support gov programs (similar to those in all other developed countries) that would help people so they would feel less likely to need abortions, or gays feeling the need to get married, then not only would the conservative, orthodox Catholics be more in line with Church teachings, but many of the liberal Catholics may be more willing to tow the line on Catholic orthodoxy. It would just be a more beautiful Church that would attract more well-intentioned people, rather than shoo them away by its hypocrisy and lack of caring and sharing.

I think one of the factors that makes some “bleeding heart” Catholics pro-choice and/or for gay rights, is their concern for people being squashed between a rock and a hard place. Let us soften that hard place (the conservatives’ resistence to increasing social programs that can help people in need & raising taxes for these if need be), then more will stand firm with the Rock that is our salvation.

---

Greeley, A.

• 1989 ‘Protestant and Catholic: Is the Analogic Imagination Extinct?’ American Sociological Review 54.4:485-502.
• 1993 ‘Religion and Attitudes toward the Environment.’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32.1:19-28.

God created the world, and then rested.

Then God created an orthodox couple, and God and everyone and the world rested.

Then God allowed orthodoxy to degenerate around the edges, and ever since then neither God nor anyone nor the world has rested.

 

[lynnvinc]

God created the world, and then rested.

Then God created an orthodox couple, and God and everyone and the world rested.

Then God allowed orthodoxy to degenerate around the edges, and ever since then neither God nor anyone nor the world has rested.

I’m a political liberal who is very much an orthodox Catholic…expect as a woman I should be wearing dresses, rather than pants; but as a modest person, I just feel more modest wearing pants. And I should be covering my head at Mass (which I may start doing), but I certainly do so in India. I also take communion on the tongue.

I think I follow nearly all of orthodox Catholicism…pretty good for a convert.

I will never, however, vote for life to be annihilated on earth. I cannot do that, even if that means I get mocked and ridiculed and beheaded, and have to go to hell for it.

 

[couponfit]

I recently read (can’t remember where) that the reason most dissident Catholics stay in the Church is because they realize that if they left then their influence would weaken (i.e. no one would really care what they think). I think this seems reasonable enough with respect to Catholic politicians who support abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also could apply to dissident priests. And even those people in charge of organizations like Catholics for Choice.

But my question is, what about the average layman? The man or woman who attends Mass weekly, yet his opinion on many things is not in accord with the Church. Why do these folks remain in the Church? You can’t really say that they stay for reasons of influence or power. So what is it?

Thanks.

I would suppose the number one reason to stay in catholic church is because one believes in the Nicene creed. Where else would a person who accepts the trinity, hypostatic union, the manifestation of christ through the epiphany, his crucifixion, his death, his resurrection, his descent, the firm acceptance of Mary as the Theotokos, her Immaculate Conception, the Communion of Saints, Free Will, the sanctity of life at conception, etc?

Let’s not forget liberalism in America is different than Liberalism in say a Muslim nation. In a Muslim nation I had to fast during Ramadan. I had to sneak into an underground CAtholic church. They were very conservative by their standards. So I suspect that it depends also on how the individual defines liberalism. Even if you find a place in America with not a single Democrat running on local ballots, you’ll find that there are those who wish emerge strong right and those more left.

Plus there are many kinds of liberals: Environmental, fiscal, social.

 

[KSU]

I’m a political liberal who is very much an orthodox Catholic…expect as a woman I should be wearing dresses, rather than pants; but as a modest person, I just feel more modest wearing pants. And I should be covering my head at Mass (which I may start doing), but I certainly do so in India. I also take communion on the tongue.

I think I follow nearly all of orthodox Catholicism…pretty good for a convert.

I will never, however, vote for life to be annihilated on earth. I cannot do that, even if that means I get mocked and ridiculed and beheaded, and have to go to hell for it.

My friend, lynn. One can’t be “very much an orthodox Catholic” and at the same time “follow nearly all of orthodox Catholicism.”

My heart goes out to you because you really do give a d**n about God’s beautiful-beyond-description creation; a universe so marvelous that even Einstein confessed that there must necessarily be someone/thing which is unimaginably greater than nature and which the great god Science can’t comprehend.

But to call yourself a very much orthodox Catholic, the Roman Catholic Church demands that you first must believe this: To the God who made you, (1) the known and unknown universe together don’t equal the worth you alone have to Him; and so, (2) the value of one child in the womb–a soul He knew by name and loved beyond our ability to imagine, even before He created the universe–is worth far more than the entire material universe.

You seem to believe a merely theoretically possible mitigation of a merely theoretical danger (AGW) should be more important to the Church than the FACT of killing one unborn soul. You know better than most people that true science is the progeny of the Church, and that the Church still (often through its Pontifical Academy of Sciences) defends true science against error in matters of interest to the Church. So you seem to believe that the Church knows that the earth will soon burn up or that AGW is real and causing abortions. If the pope is keeping it a secrete in order to protect orthodox Catholics and political conservatives, how can you profess orthodox Catholicism?

Seriously, without naming names, where do you learn the seeming hatred for me and all “conservatives” that comes out in your posts? Is it just because you think we don’t understand interior pain? We do understand it, in fact we have more than enough of our own, but that doesn’t change the meaning of orthodox or conservative. I am not skilled in diplomatic writing so maybe I sound arrogant and preachy to heterodox Catholics, but that’s what faith can sound like, even in the Bible.

lynn, I do not want to debate with you your understanding of political terminology or whether or not AGW, as you believe it to be, exits or not. I DO want to understand why you believe some things the Roman Catholic Church does not (e.g.,that today you must choose to “vote for life to be annihilated on earth”), but still call yourself very much an orthodox Catholic. That’s what this thread and my post #655 is about.

I don’t believe total orthodoxy means you have to choose to love the Creator’s Body on Earth (the Church) less than you love His creation–life on earth, but that’s what you SEEM to be saying. To the contrary, an orthodox faith in the Church means you believe you never would have to vote for life to be annihilated on earth.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

KSU; I admire your patience and tenacity. But don’t you think that Lynn is determined to NOT believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church - ie the orthodoxy within the true Church? Some people will never be convinced by reasoned argument because they CHOOSE to disbelieve and be damned. To not understand is different to being determinedly obtuse and argumentative. This is what I find in most ‘liberals’. These should leave the Roman Catholic Church because they are only determined to undermine believers.

 

[KSU]

“Some people will never be convinced by reasoned argument because they CHOOSE to disbelieve and be damned.”–Jerome Fan

I understand what you mean, and relativism is seriously wrong; there is absolute right and wrong. But I also find it difficult to believe that rational people (even if they believe damnation is a possibility) want to be damned. I don’t know their thought process, and I don’t know how God judges what the Church calls invincible ignorance. Nor am I implying that the latter applies to lynn.

I do think that lynn is far more active in her orthodox beliefs than most Catholics, that God is the only one who can read hearts, that His mercy is greater than ours, that He wants no one to be damned, and that where there is life there is hope.

Thus my efforts to understand lynn.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I refuse to vote for any Republicans (or Democrats for that matter), and resent that anyone thinks they are entitled to tell me to do so.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

“Some people will never be convinced by reasoned argument because they CHOOSE to disbelieve and be damned.”–Jerome Fan

I understand what you mean, and relativism is seriously wrong; there is absolute right and wrong. But I also find it difficult to believe that rational people (even if they believe damnation is a possibility) want to be damned. I don’t know their thought process, and I don’t know how God judges what the Church calls invincible ignorance. Nor am I implying that the latter applies to lynn.

I do think that lynn is far more active in her orthodox beliefs than most Catholics, that God is the only one who can read hearts, that His mercy is greater than ours, that He wants no one to be damned, and that where there is life there is hope.

Thus my efforts to understand lynn.

I do wish I had your optimism and charity towards those who are obtuse and intransigent. Read the sermon of St Leonard of Port Maurice “How little are those who are saved” in which he describes such people. He says such as those ‘choose to be damned’. The sermon is freely available on the Internet and makes for sobering reading. God bless.

 

[KSU]

“I do wish I had your optimism and charity”-- Jerome Fan.

So do I ; it’s easy to be charitable on the Internet.

I understand fully what you mean, and there is no doubt that those who are damned clearly choose evil rather than the eternal life God offers them; even angels fell prey to a horrible, damning pride (they were not favored with Beatific Vision before the Fall).

But, when in the heat of a debate a Catholic person says,“I will never, however, vote for life to be annihilated on earth… even if that means I …have to go to hell for it.” , I simply can’t take it to mean that the person is consciously choosing an evil that would result in damnation. Given the context of this thread, I see it as mere hyperbole. Some folks are just more emotional than others.

I suffer from it as well when I perceive a below-the-belt attack from liberals on my Church, family or country.

 

[Faithdancer]

I recently read (can’t remember where) that the reason most dissident Catholics stay in the Church is because they realize that if they left then their influence would weaken (i.e. no one would really care what they think). I think this seems reasonable enough with respect to Catholic politicians who support abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also could apply to dissident priests. And even those people in charge of organizations like Catholics for Choice.

But my question is, what about the average layman? The man or woman who attends Mass weekly, yet his opinion on many things is not in accord with the Church. Why do these folks remain in the Church? You can’t really say that they stay for reasons of influence or power. So what is it?

Thanks.

I’m an independent voter. I refuse to register for either party. I can oppose public funding for abortion, oppose legalizing gay marriage, etc. and on the other hand support other policies, primarily regarding taxation, support for the needy and unfortunate, etc which some might deem to be “liberal.” If I don’t see a presidential candidate with whom I align on these issues, I can simply not vote for any presidential candidate.

I think that there is a locked in way of thinking that one must be either a Democrat or a Republican, when in fact one can be neither.

 

[lynnvinc]

(2) the value of one child in the womb–a soul He knew by name and loved beyond our ability to imagine, even before He created the universe–is worth far more than the entire material universe.

Agreed, and there is absolutely NO candidate who is in favor of protecting that life. They are ALL to a man and woman for destroying life in the womb…tho they have their different favorite means of doing that, some by the scalpel, some by various types of poison, some by killing the mother by various means.

It then becomes a matter of choosing the one who will do the least amount of killing the babies in the womb. An honest assessment, meaning that we take into consideration that simply passing laws against these various means will not necessarily be effective.

May God have mercy on their souls, and the souls of those who vote to kill human life.

 

[andrewstx]

I think it is important to seperate theology from politics. For example I am theologically orthodox and follow the churches teaching.

But politically I am a moderate Independent, and I resent the idea to be Catholic one must vote for a particular party.

One party opposes abortion but also supports the death penalty, wants to abolish or privatise social security and opposes health care for the poor.

The other party supports abortion as a right, but wants to continue social security and insure that health care is a basic human right.

Both have their good and bad points and agree and disagree with the church on different points.

Their are things in the pro-life agenda that bother me as well. I oppose abortion in all cases of course, but I have problems with people who murder abortion doctors and those who turn their heads.

And I really dislike those who stand outside planned parenthood and scream “baby killer”.

I don’t think that furthers our cause at all.

 

[KSU]

Liberals:
Quotes: Republican candidates… to a man and woman reject science…pro-death candidates…just another way in which political conservatives are in opposition to Catholicism. The other ways including their strong stance against social justice…// it is a sin to reject evolution and anthropogenic climate change…We are killing people thru climate change//compassionate toward gays struggling to get on their partner’s insurance and have other benefits married people have//I think if the politically conservative, orthodox Catholics were to open their hearts and minds to others more – strive to mitigate AGW, and support gov programs (similar to those in all other developed countries) that would help people so they would feel less likely to need abortions, or gays feeling the need to get married, then not only would the conservative, orthodox Catholics be more in line with Church teachings, but many of the liberal Catholics may be more willing to tow the line on Catholic orthodoxy. It would just be a more beautiful Church that would attract more well-intentioned people, rather than shoo them away by its hypocrisy and lack of caring and sharing//I refuse to vote for any Republicans (or Democrats for that matter), and resent that anyone thinks they are entitled to tell me to do so// I refuse to register for either party. I can oppose public funding for abortion, oppose legalizing gay marriage, etc. and on the other hand support other policies, primarily regarding taxation, support for the needy and unfortunate, etc which some might deem to be “liberal.”// If I don’t see a presidential candidate with whom I align on these issues, I can simply not vote for any presidential candidate.// I resent the idea to be Catholic one must vote for a particular party.One party opposes abortion but also supports the death penalty, wants to abolish or privatize social security and opposes health care for the poor. End Quotes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Jesus: But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

St. Pius X:… alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of…establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see… the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity… [benefiting]…exploiters of the people [and bringing] Socialism in its train.

R. Reagan: Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.

 

[lynnvinc]

Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

If orthodox and heterodox Catholics, and political conservatives and liberals would own up to their own responsibilities to reduce their own harms and killings of people, that would be good. The proof is in the pudding – they are not doing that. So how can they sincerely ask others do tow the line, when they are not, but instead are acting like Cain, denying that they are doing any wrong.

I’d be first in line to vote for a candidate who was not only anti-abortion in the full sense (of wanting to make it illegal and of providing help to women and families so they wouldn’t feed the need for abortions), but was also for reducing environmental harms that actually do kill fetuses and others. If he/she were also for progressive taxes, and helping the poor out of poverty and its negative concomitants, then I’d really be eager to vote for him/her. (I know there are a few candidates at the lower levels of gov that fit this.)

Sad thing, the other day I was talking to a woman who suffered various conditions that could be linked to pesticides, and she said that she had been using them heavily in earlier years. I mentioned how a Catholic friend had had a miscarriage and had asked me if the pesticides she had been using all summer may have caused that, and I said yes, and that that could also cause birth defects. The woman I was talking to said, “well it was a good thing the child was miscarried and not born.” I didn’t agree.

Unfortunately it is the poor who tend to have these miscarriages and these children born with defects caused by toxins (tho it can happen to all), and are least able to care for them. Esp tragic were the high numbers of anencephaly cases (babies born without brains) in a town near mine. The CDC blamed it on mothers not eating folic acid foods (tho there was no indication that their diets were different from other mothers throughout the region); and later a study showed that the toxin in that town blocks the intake of folic acid.

The fetuses and babies (not to mention grown people) dying from effects of climate change is increasing and will be tremendous in years, decades, centuries, and millennia to come. The important point is that a portion of the GHGs we are emitting today can stay up the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years, and go on harming and killing well into the future. It is like we are shooting off bullets today that will eventually kill people (and we are triggering nature thru this initial warming to emit for GHGs). The sin is today, the repercussions of that sin will go on and on and on.

If we really want to reduce evil, we’ve got to learn about it and do something about it, not just bury our heads in the sand and deny there are any problems.