Why shouldn't taking care of God's Earth/creation be a moral issue?

[Ender]

Yeah I’m not saying it’s worse or the same as abortion, but it certainly is still an important moral issue.

It is an important issue but that doesn’t make it a moral issue. Abortion is a moral issue because it deals with an act that is intrinsically evil - pollution is not in that category. Debates about pollution and conservation are rarely between those who care and those who don’t but are disagreements over what constitutes pollution. The arguments are a tug of war between those say “this is too much” and others who say “that’s not enough.” Those are not moral questions, they are prudential and the Church properly has nothing to say about which compounds are hazardous in what quantities.

I’d say it’s more important than whatever the government’s stance gay marriage is, to be honest.

Gay marriage, by contrast with environmental issues, is a moral issue, which is why the Church has a position on gay marriage but not global warming.

Ender

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is an important issue but that doesn’t make it a moral issue. Abortion is a moral issue because it deals with an act that is intrinsically evil - pollution is not in that category. Debates about pollution and conservation are rarely between those who care and those who don’t but are disagreements over what constitutes pollution. The arguments are a tug of war between those say “this is too much” and others who say “that’s not enough.” Those are not moral questions, they are prudential and the Church properly has nothing to say about which compounds are hazardous in what quantities.
Gay marriage, by contrast with environmental issues, is a moral issue, which is why the Church has a position on gay marriage but not global warming.

Ender

Edited my post to ask if anyone understands it it climate change?

 

[MillTownCath]

It is an important issue but that doesn’t make it a moral issue. Abortion is a moral issue because it deals with an act that is intrinsically evil - pollution is not in that category. Debates about pollution and conservation are rarely between those who care and those who don’t but are disagreements over what constitutes pollution. The arguments are a tug of war between those say “this is too much” and others who say “that’s not enough.” Those are not moral questions, they are prudential and the Church properly has nothing to say about which compounds are hazardous in what quantities.
Gay marriage, by contrast with environmental issues, is a moral issue, which is why the Church has a position on gay marriage but not global warming.

Ender

Honestly, I think almost every issue boils down to actually being a moral issue.

Budgets are moral documents, they show our values and priorities.
There are moral issues at stake when deciding who gets the money.

Taking care of God’s earth IS a moral issue because it is a sin if we trash his gift, just like it is a sin if we trash our own bodies.

Just because it isn’t as easily defined as “pro-life = good pro-choice = bad” doesn’t mean it isn’t a moral issue.

We need to broaden the scope of what we define as a moral issue. If abortion and gay marriage were the only things our there on the table, then Jesus probably would have only had to spend a couple of days down here.

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.” - MLK

 

[Ender]

Honestly, I think almost every issue boils down to actually being a moral issue.

In one sense this is true in that we have a moral obligation to do good and all problems present us with the choice of either ignoring them or trying to resolve them. Once that decision is made, however, what remains are practical considerations, not moral ones.

Budgets are moral documents, they show our values and priorities.

This is where we part company. Budgets are not moral documents, they are economic guesses about what will work and what will not. I oppose attempts to say everything is a moral issue because that is nothing more than an inappropriate judgment that people who disagree with your positions are immoral. What needs to be recognized is that disagreements about budgets, health care, the environment, etc are disagreements over what people believe will work. They are not disagreements between those who want to help and those who don’t.

There are moral issues at stake when deciding who gets the money.

No, there aren’t. It grossly oversimplifies the problem to say that the solutions are obvious and can be opposed only by those who don’t care to solve the problems. The solutions are not obvious and people may properly take completely opposite positions on almost all of them.

Taking care of God’s earth IS a moral issue because it is a sin if we trash his gift, just like it is a sin if we trash our own bodies.

Again, no. The debate is not between those who would trash the Earth and those who would “save” it; it is between those who think that (e.g.) drilling in ANWR is safe and those who think it is dangerous. It is a question of who is right, not who is moral.

We need to broaden the scope of what we define as a moral issue.

To broaden the scope of what is a moral issue is to strip the term of its meaning; if everything is a moral issue then the term loses its use in distinguishing the sacred from the profane.

If abortion and gay marriage were the only things our there on the table, then Jesus probably would have only had to spend a couple of days down here.

Jesus would have nothing whatever to say about the budget, immigration, or health care; those are lay problems to resolve. He did, however, leave us guidance on abortion and gay marriage.

Ender

 

[MillTownCath]

“Jesus would have nothing whatever to say about the budget, immigration, or health care; those are lay problems to resolve. He did, however, leave us guidance on abortion and gay marriage.”

How could you possibly believe that Jesus would only talk about abortion and gay marriage? We need to break free of the narrow mindedness of the religious right. If abortion was illegal and homosexuality was not practiced, would we then have no moral problems?

Absolutely not.

You fail to recognize the importance of social justice in the Catholic Faith. Social justice isn’t just a term the left throws around, it is our duty to work for social justice as Catholics.

1938 Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.

Health care is an issue of humanity. If we continue to let the market run free any leave people out to die of deseases simply because they cannot afford the expensive cost, we will be failing in our duty to love and take car of one another.

Budgets ARE moral documents — they reveal our priorities, who and what is important, and who and what are not. To address excessive deficits is also a moral issue — preventing our children and grandchildren from having crushing debt. But how you reduce a deficit is also a moral issue. We should reduce the deficit, but not at the expense of our poorest people.
Because it is simply wrong — morally and religiously — to focus our budget cuts on the people who are already hurting, and make them hurt more. Programs that are effectively reducing poverty should not be cut. They should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.

We shouldn’t be reducing our meager efforts for poor people in order to reduce the deficit, they didn’t get us into this, and starving them isn’t going to get us out of it.

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey” - Isaiah 10

^ I don’t see how that could only include gay marriage and abortion. It certainly includes, abortion, but it is not limited to it.

 

[Ender]

How could you possibly believe that Jesus would only talk about abortion and gay marriage?

I said he would ignore prudential political issues. Don’t distort my comments.

You fail to recognize the importance of social justice in the Catholic Faith. Social justice isn’t just a term the left throws around, it is our duty to work for social justice as Catholics.

You fail to recognize that social justice is an end and the disputes are over the means to attain that end. The Church tells us where to go but she does not tell us how to get there, we have to work that out for ourselves - and working that out does not involve moral choices.

Health care is an issue of humanity. If we continue to let the market run free any leave people out to die of deseases simply because they cannot afford the expensive cost, we will be failing in our duty to love and take car of one another.

No one disputes whether or not people should have health care; the disputes are over how best to deliver it. Again, that’s not a moral problem but a practical one.

Budgets ARE moral documents — they reveal our priorities, who and what is important, and who and what are not.

No, they don’t. They are practical compromises about how best to meet competing claims and balance available resources. Government budgets are no more moral documents than are household budgets.

To address excessive deficits is also a moral issue

Whether to address a problem is a moral question; how to resolve it is not.

We should reduce the deficit, but not at the expense of our poorest people.

And this means one thing to you and another to me. As I said, the Church offers no guidance on deficit reduction plans.

Because it is simply wrong — morally and religiously — to focus our budget cuts on the people who are already hurting, and make them hurt more.

Perhaps, but then I would dispute your characterization of the situation … and, isn’t this thread about whether environmental issues are moral concerns?

Programs that are effectively reducing poverty should not be cut

Let me point out that as soon as you begin to debate whether a program is effective you are out of the realm of morality. This is my point: determining what does or doesn’t work isn’t a moral problem.

I don’t see how that could only include gay marriage and abortion. It certainly includes, abortion, but it is not limited to it.

Moral issues are those that involve intrinsic evils, otherwise the morality of an action is essentially determined by the intent behind it (and to a lesser extent by the circumstances.) That’s why calling calling environmental and budget issues moral is merely a way to justify uncharitable and judgmental statements about your political opponents.

Ender

 

[Mark_David]

The environment is important; I try to help and avoid polluting it further, directly or indirectly. That doesn’t put it on par with moral evils (such as abortion or poverty), though - or justify material/nature-worship. As for tree hugging (lol) - that’s not worth getting a bunch of splinters stuck into you over

 

[MillTownCath]

Simply wrong. Way over simplified view of morality.

Read what the Arch Bishop of the Twin Cities says about the issue.

“The “common good” would include such considerations as: fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations, controlling future debt and deficits, and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable.”

He clearly sees morality playing a large role in how we go about the budget.

"1) Human life and dignity: Every budget decision should be assessed as to whether or not it protects or threatens human life and the dignity of persons;

1. Priority for the poor: A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” brothers and sisters (Matthew 25). The needs of the hungry, the homeless, the disabled and the unemployed should be primary in our considerations;
2. The common good: Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all members of our society, especially families who struggle to live with dignity during difficult economic times."

thecatholicspirit.com/that-they-may-all-be-one/budgeting-with-the-common-good-in-mind/

 

[StrawberryJam]

Simply wrong. Way over simplified view of morality.

Read what the Arch Bishop of the Twin Cities says about the issue.

“The “common good” would include such considerations as: fulfilling the demands of justice and moral obligations to future generations, controlling future debt and deficits, and protecting the lives and dignity of those who are poor and vulnerable.”

He clearly sees morality playing a large role in how we go about the budget.

"1) Human life and dignity: Every budget decision should be assessed as to whether or not it protects or threatens human life and the dignity of persons;

1. Priority for the poor: A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” brothers and sisters (Matthew 25). The needs of the hungry, the homeless, the disabled and the unemployed should be primary in our considerations;
2. The common good: Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all members of our society, especially families who struggle to live with dignity during difficult economic times."

thecatholicspirit.com/that-they-may-all-be-one/budgeting-with-the-common-good-in-mind/

I’m glad I am free to ignore his gospel if I become a Catholic.

 

[MillTownCath]

What exactly does this verse mean to you then?

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey” - Isaiah 10

• Woe to those who make unjust laws? How about a law that
• Oppressive decrees?
• Deprive the poor of their rights? Withholding Justice from the oppressed?

Do you not believe that business can be done in an immoral fashion?
Is a company hoarding the earth of its resources and exploiting the poor in order to gain more profit not immoral?

Would giving the rich a tax cut while defunding schools and sending the old and poor out on the streets have no moral consequences?

Obviously it’s not always easy to see what is moral and what is not. But morality, unlike we might have believed in Sunday School, isn’t as simple as knowing black from white.

1397 The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:

You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother,. . . . You dishonor this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged worthy to take part in this meal. . . . God freed you from all your sins and invited you here, but you have not become more merciful.

 

[MillTownCath]

The environment is important; I try to help and avoid polluting it further, directly or indirectly. That doesn’t put it on par with moral evils (such as abortion or poverty), though - or justify material/nature-worship. As for tree hugging (lol) - that’s not worth getting a bunch of splinters stuck into you over

You either have a moral obligation to take care of God’s earth, or you don’t.

 

[MillTownCath]

It’s a perfect moral issue.

And it should begin with the person’s own self-examination of their attachments to things. Their consumption. Their desire for endless comfort. Their desire for more.

And by their incredibly quiet spirit of poverty, and their humility, perhaps a few people nearby them may notice and may begin their own self-examination.

Where this focus goes off the rails is with “activism”, brow-beating others…or pushing from high levels of government for reform. It all becomes an indirect environmentalism.

The Church properly knows that it’s a moral issue…and it’s a personal issue.

When we finish refining our own desires and behavior to such a state of perfection AND HUMILITY, then maybe others will take notice.

But there should be no self-promotion, and browbeating.

Gluttony is indeed a sin.

 

[MillTownCath]

He’s “conservative” where the Church is “conservative.”

Which is basically confined to abortion and gay marriage.

 

[Ender]

Simply wrong. Way over simplified view of morality.

• What moral questions are involved in determining the safe level of lead in drinking water?
• What does Aquinas say that helps us figure out how to resolve our financial crisis?
• Which encyclical specifies whether the US should or should not build a fence on the Mexican border?

If these issues present moral problems it is only because they are … problems. There is surely no moral issue in figuring out how to resolve them. The Church says to be sensitive to the needs of the poor but what she absolutely does not do is tell us how to fulfill that obligation. These are prudential lay responsibilities, to apply the guidelines the Church provides, but it is the objectives that identify our moral obligations, not the solutions. Where these arguments go off the rails is when someone claims that some specific solution is mandated by the Church. That is simply untrue.

Ender

 

[MillTownCath]

What moral questions are involved in determining the safe level of lead in drinking water?

**If we deliberately allow water that we know people sick, the person in charge would be morally at fault. **

• What does Aquinas say that helps us figure out how to resolve our financial crisis?

I’m not sure about Aquinas, but I would say that resolved the financial crisis on the backs of the poor would be morally wrong.

• Which encyclical specifies whether the US should or should not build a fence on the Mexican border?

**How a society treats strangers, foreigners and resident aliens is arguably a major focus, even preoccupation, of the Bible.

The Bible or Church doesn’t have an answer for every single issue, but there are certainly moral and immoral ways a country could go about solving a problem.**
1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:

Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace. *

Overall, if you believe the Government has no role in social justice, chances are you probably need to be doing a lot more to help solve the problems of the poor.

 

[Orogeny]

What moral questions are involved in determining the safe level of lead in drinking water?

**If we deliberately allow water that we know people sick, the person in charge would be morally at fault. **

What in the world does that mean? Who are you suggesting wants people to have to drink water that will make them sick?

What is the safe level of lead in drinking water? What do you base that on?

• Which encyclical specifies whether the US should or should not build a fence on the Mexican border?

How a society treats strangers, foreigners and resident aliens is arguably a major focus, even preoccupation, of the Bible.

Does having border checkpoints qualify as mistreatment of strangers, foreigners and resident aliens?

What does scripture say about a thief that comes by night?

Peace

Tim

 

[vz71]

…on the backs of the poor would be morally wrong.

This is a meaningless cliché.

Specifics would be appreciated.

 

[JimG]

Taking care of the environment may be a moral issue, but it is far from a clear cut one.

What does taking care of the environment mean? Does it mean we should never take any action which interferes with the natural environment? If that’s the case, the agricultural revolution was immoral. But the agricultural revolution some 8,000+ years ago allowed mankind to transition from roving bands of nomads to settled city dwellers.

Was the industrial revolution immoral? It produced a lot of pollution. But it sure improved productivity over individuals doing all work by hand. Steam power was less polluting than coal power, but a lot more dangerous for workers.

As for resources, how about this proposition: The creator gave us oil deposits. He expects us to use them. Does He expect us to use corn for fuel or for food?

The creator gave us radioactive elements. Does He expect us to use them for nuclear power?

Businesses can act in immoral ways. So can governments. Which is worse: a business which pollutes, or a government which bankrupts the country? Which has a more lasting deleterious effect on the people?

The questions are not easy nor clear cut, and it would be irresponsible to suggest that morality lies only with one side of disputed issues.

 

[MillTownCath]

What in the world does that mean? Who are you suggesting wants people to have to drink water that will make them sick?

What is the safe level of lead in drinking water? What do you base that on?Does having border checkpoints qualify as mistreatment of strangers, foreigners and resident aliens?

What does scripture say about a thief that comes by night?

Peace

Tim

Is gluttony a moral issue?
At which point are we sinning by eating too much?
If I eat too much at one meal, is it a sin?
Is eating at McDonalds every so often bad? How about 2 times a week? 3? Is three sinning?

Oh no, the Bible doesn’t have specific answers to every one of my questions.

I guess gluttony isn’t a sin then!

 

[MillTownCath]

Taking care of the environment may be a moral issue, but it is far from a clear cut one.

Agreed. Argument resolved.