Comments on: Call of Conscience on Global Warming

By: wgsullivan

wgsullivan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:40:47 +0000

Just about every aspect of this discussion is covered and comes in a neat little book with an accompanying DVD for clergy at the Acton Institute. If you want to have something handy to pass on to those you feel need to see some real Christian teaching on true environmentalism check out the trailer at: http://www.acton.org/media/effective-stewardship-curriculum-trailer.php The trailer does not mention all the issues mentioned above but the DVD does. To order the book and DVD go to: http://www.acton.org/impact/clergy.php
If you order you will receive a much more Christ centered view (to pass on) of environmental stewardship than the popular ideas the movement is known for today.
This book and DVD are what the Bishops should be using instead of what was mentioned in the article.

By: Arkanabar Ilarsadin

Arkanabar Ilarsadin — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:30:00 +0000

What continues to amaze me about Christians who climb on the antrhogenic global warming bandwagon is how little their faith is, that God is good and continues to see to our needs. As many others have said, the bandwagon is calling for draconian government intervention, which is putting our faith in Caesar.

I’m not one for spreading filth, pollution and poison. But I recognize that such environmentalism should come after society has sufficient resources to feed, house, clothe, bathe, and provide medical treatment to all (ours has far more resources than needed for this, but government often acts to inhibit effective distribution). But to indict combustion is to deny us the very tool which allows us to provide these things. It’s nearly impossible to make or move or power anything unless you’re burning something. CO2 is not a pollutant.

I’ve posted about this on my blog a couple of times. Here are the URLs:

http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/2007/11/global-warming.html

http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-is-inconvenient-for-al.html

The second one contains a link to a documentary on the global warming movement.

By: Joe DeVet

Joe DeVet — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:21:50 +0000

When I hear Catholic voice nowadays (including Vatican officials) start lecturing on the moral imperative for taking action against global warming, I fear that we may have another Galileo incident. Seems that much of the problem was that the Church took sides prematurely in an open scientific debate, and suffered long-term embarrassment as a result. The same could be happening re the debate on “man-made global warming.”

Another reason to be wary is that the “solutions” to the “problem” of warming are draconian measures which will surely have grave negative effects on economic development if implemented. For the rich, it will be inconvenient; for the poor, devastating. If we have a social principle of “preferential option for the poor,” then encouraging drastic action against “global warming” would make us a house divided against itself.

By: mkochan

mkochan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:40:28 +0000

I think it makes a better “Catholic exchange” when we mix it up in this column sometimes. Besides our dear Appalachian priest hasn’t become a heretic by expressing himself on global warming (although there is that “creation-centered spirituality” stuff that I find suspicious), so regardless of all the nay-saying above, his remains an allowable Catholic opinion on the issue.

By: Loretta

Loretta — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:07:04 +0000

MKochan,
I like jrwessel’s idea.

In the next version of CE, do you think there could be an “Over the Edge” section for articles that do keep us “in the know” about what is going on around us (the bad with the good) eventhough its overboard?

I like the idea very much.

By: jrwessel

jrwessel — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:34:41 +0000

’twas just a rhetorical comment (last sentence). Actually I was surprised to see this article, but just because of what I mentioned earlier. The rest of the globwarming jibberish is somewhat easily seen through. But, the exchange of a concept that is (apparently) not catholic (creation worship) made my eyes pop out. Since the column is under “The Edge”, maybe it is the appropriate place for it. Then again, do we need another section called “Over the Edge”? I guess this article just hit me the wrong way. I have encountered enough “wackiness” in the Ohio,Indiana,Kentucky tri-state area and CE has always been my own little Catholic Escape and it really caught me off-guard. I sincerely hope Fr. Rausch can provide a clarification. In the meantime, I have already emailed Cardinal Rigali to see if we can keep the USCCB from supporting the jibberish.

By: mkochan

mkochan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:53:22 +0000

Jrwessel, would you rather not know?

By: terrygeorge

terrygeorge — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:14:51 +0000

Yes, jrwessel, that did escape our comments. thank you for putting it so succinctly. that is a problem that repeatedly keeps me at arms length from full environmentalism. may God help us to see rightly.

By: jrwessel

jrwessel — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:24:29 +0000

I am somewhat surprised that most, if not all of the comments to this point have missed the second to last statement in Fr. Rausch’s article. “The DVD (available from CCA) hopes to encourage a more intentional, creation-centered spirituality”. I would like Fr. Rausch to clarify this sentence of his. Is he pushing a pagan spirituality himself, or just promoting it by pushing the DVD? It seems to me that a Christ-centered spirituality is what we’re after as Christians, is it not? Quite honestly, it seems to me like direct paganistic propaganda, on CE nonetheless! What is the world coming to !!!

By: terrygeorge

terrygeorge — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:21:17 +0000

Cyclist443, I strongly agree. Scientists promote themselves (ourselves, I counted myself as one) as purely driven by the factual truth. However, fallen human nature runs strong within the scientific community (perhaps because we cannot observe a conscience). It is common for scientists and scholars (and journalists, and politicians, and lobbyists) to ‘massage’ the data for their own selfish ends.

Ever since the 2004 study showing Kerry to be the ‘most catholic’ politician in the senate, based on alignment with various USCCB position statements, I’ve distrusted the USCCB, or certain elements within it. It seemed as if someone had selected specific non-crucial issues to allow Kerry to get into that position. One in particular has stood out in my mind, something about banning the use of mercury. I’m curious to hear what their take on it is now… Is it still so important, especially since mercury is used in CFLs to reduce energy usage and CO2 emissions…