AmericanPapist Comments
A fine announcement that encourages us all to be good stewards of our environment. It goes far beyond addressing current zeitgeist of 'Global Warming' and address a wide range of environmental impacts that we can have.
To be clear, the article is about the Apostolic Nuncio's advice to Catholics. It's not about "lobbies." It's about the theological ramifications of stewartship and care of the environment. "Global warming" and environmentalism in general are bigger than politics as Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I made clear in their common statement of November 30, 2006.
Well the connection is probably closer to the USCCB and the DNC where man caused climate change has become Gospel.
I listen to the English version of Vatican Radio and they often talk about climate change and there is zero skepticism that it is man made. Not surprising since in Europe the skeptical view of man cause climate change is not often herd in public.
The problem with Europeans Catholics and the USCCB is that they take up all the bogus, liberal issues such as man-made global warming (which is completely false), refuse to endorse conservative political candidates, and then are completely dumbfounded when these liberals they help elect by being on the fence then go on to support abortion on demand and euthanasia. It is weak leadership.
To me EWTN and orthodox Catholic blogs are a lot more relevant than the USCCB.
Another thing: Archbishop Migliore should stick to Catholic doctrine because from his comments, he doesn't seem to understand that "spending less" will hurt economies, and the wealthier the economy, the better the country protects the environment through National Parks and environmental restrictions. Poor countries can't afford to do that.
Here in Rochester Diocese, our latest issue of the diocesan Newspaper had a front page Global Warming article that ran for three of the 10 pages of the paper. They also covered the Pope's Synod Exhortation. That got a half page on page 8. Making this kind of scientific "theory" front page new is just laughable, but, making it a priority over the Holy Father is even worse. But, hey, this is Rochester, the chancery will always go with the latest "fad" especially in "social justice."
yippee.
Gabe,
It is a common mistake for American Catholics to try to fit the Church into political agendas such as conservative and liberal agendas. Chruch doctrine is simply true and universal and we should uphold it as such. Let's stop thinking of America as the universal Church for a second, because when you leave the US, you will not see the whole world judging certain policies or ideas into "conservative" or "liberal." I'm glad that the Church has a wider view than that.
If you are asking Archbishop Migliore to stick to Catholic doctrine, then it is you who doesn't know the basis of Catholic Social doctrine and perhaps a bit of reading of Catholic social doctrine may help you understand where the Archbishop comes from.
By the way, the Nuncio is the representative of the Holy See and, thus, his statements are aligned with the Vatican, so if the Nuncio is insisting on the responsibility that Catholics have towards protecting the environment and the USCCB is addressing the issue, why suddenly is the USCCB so "out of line" with Church doctrine? Or so liberal?
CPT Tom,
You know what I think is laughable? That American Papist thinks that global warming is the new "secular religion." Perhaps some of you are missing the whole concept behind humans as the imago Dei and the responsibility towards the rest of creation that it carries.
Gabe,
To me EWTN and orthodox Catholic blogs are a lot more relevant than the USCCB.
In regards to the USCCB, It may help you know what Pope John Paul II, in the Motu Propio Apostolos Suos, had to say regarding the permanent character, authority, and importance of Episcopal Conferences and their importance in bringing unity to the Church. He didn't say there how it was OK for the faithful to discredit the authority of such permanent council. To do so is to minimize the office of the Bishops.
By the way, you can't separate orthodoxy from orthopraxis... Right belief is always intricately related to righteous actions and that is what we are doing when we acknowledge our responsibility towards the environment.
Katerina-
I'm just saying that Archbishop Migliore is plain wrong on an issue that has nothing to do with Catholic tradition or doctrine: There is no such thing as man-made global warming. It is a political fad made up by liberals and socialists, who were warning us in the 70s and 80s about global cooling. Some scientists have called it one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of science. By the way, there is great book on the issue: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming that smashes these myths.
Also, I'm saying his solution--spending less--would be disastrous for the world economy. Rich countries protect the environment far, far better than poor countries do because they have the money and wealth to spend to protect the environment. For example, Malaysia protects its environment far better than Indonesia through national parks. Why? Because it is a wealthier country and can afford to with its tax revenues.
Really, the USCCB is irrelevant from a doctrinal standpoint. The Church has consistently opposed the heresy of Conciliarism.
Personally, I think the USCCB should be trying much harder to elect representatives that are pro-life and presidents that will appoint pro-life judges to the bench.
I'm just saying that Archbishop Migliore is plain wrong on an issue that has nothing to do with Catholic tradition or doctrine: There is no such thing as man-made global warming.
I'm speechless that Gabe has reached certainy on an issue that, just logically speaking, is one of inference and probability. And, regrettably, if the Apostolic Nuncio is "plain wrong", than so too is the Holy See whose opinion he represents before the U.N. But if Gabe is comfortable claiming certainty over an issue that cannot bear the claim of certainty, than we ought to turn him over to his own devices: Catholic blogs.
Really, the USCCB is irrelevant from a doctrinal standpoint. The Church has consistently opposed the heresy of Conciliarism.
First I do not know what you mean by "Conciliarism" applying to the USCCB. As one who has an advanced degree in Church history, I cannot for the life of me understand what this term could mean in this context. Conciliarism claimed to find the locus of the highest authority in the Church in either Ecumenical Councils or random associations/councils of bishops. The USCCB has never claimed such authority for itself, and rightly so, since Conciliarism was condemned by the Fifth Lateran Council.
I think the term you for which you are groping is "Gallicanism", an ideology that seeks to raise the status of national churches to that of the Church of Rome. But, as Katerina has rightly noted, Apostolos Suos outlines the legitmacy, function and limit of national episcopal conferences. Also, a breeze through Canon Law (esp. Canons 447-459) will likewise disclose the important and permanent character of national episcopal conferences.
Thus, we can safely conclude that the USCCB is not a Gallican enterprise, nor is it of little, negligible or no doctrinal authority. I encourage you to read the magisterium and Canon Law for your intellectual and spiritual formation rather than Catholic blogs. My own blog is designed to complement, in a very restricted and minimal way, Catholic doctrine, elucidating what it can. But I would never presume that my blog (or any Catholic blog, for that matter) could ever be "more reliable" than the USCCB or any legitimate episcopal body in the Catholic Church. To assert otherwise is to come dangerously close to embracing the absurd.
Michael-
I can tell you that orthodox Catholic blogs and EWTN are a lot more reliable for the teaching of the Magisterium, which all faithful Catholics must adhere to, than many liberal bishops. (I'm using the political term here because of the understood meaning.)
Also, I'm working on an M.A. in Systematic Theology at Christendom. I have two excellent professors this semester: Father Roger Hunter-Hall, who just wrote an excellent article in Crisis, and Steve Weidenkopf, author of the upcoming Church History timeline by Ascention Press. I mean exactly Conciliarism, the heretical response to the Avignon Papacy and the Great Western Schism, which stated that the pronouncements of Councils trump the traditional teachings of Catholic doctrine and Popes.
If Council X by the bishops in X country says that socialism is preferable to capitalism, they are just historically and scientifically wrong. If they say the death penalty is the moral equivalent of abortion, they are wrong. There is no need for a faithful Catholic to believe it. Likewise, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to manmade global warming. Check out the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.
By the way, I have a fellow student in my Christology class, a brilliant professor of political science who also has a master's in economics. He is working on his master's in theology just because he is interested in it. He stated to me that if you follow who funds these scientists who proclaim man-made global warming, you will see why they are pushing this false agenda.
I mean exactly Conciliarism, the heretical response to the Avignon Papacy and the Great Western Schism, which stated that the pronouncements of Councils trump the traditional teachings of Catholic doctrine and Popes.
I did not doubt that you understood the term. I merely expressed my astonishment that you insinuated that the USCCB presents its teachings with Consiliarist pretenses and subtexts. Nor am I aware of any Catholics who hold a Consiliarist viewpoint with regard to the USCCB, though I think it possible that they exist. But be careful that you do not confuse Consiliarism with Gallicanism; they resemble one another but ultimately stem from different theological, ideological and historical roots.
If Council X by the bishops in X country says that socialism is preferable to capitalism, they are just historically and scientifically wrong.
You used a value-charged term (preferable) in order to make what appears to be an objective claim (historically and scientifically wrong). From the standpoint of logic alone you cannot draw the conclusion that you do. But, more interestingly so, there are plently of economists, sociologists and political scientists who take theoretical socialism to be preferable to capitalism. But again, "preferable" is a value-charged term that cannot be proved or disproved. In my opinion, empirical (as opposed to theoretical) capitalism is preferable to empirical (as opposed to theoretical) socialism, but from a strictly theoretical standpoint, each socio-economic worldview has its strengths and its weaknesses.
If they say the death penalty is the moral equivalent of abortion, they are wrong. There is no need for a faithful Catholic to believe it.
And if a pope makes the same claim, he too is wrong. And if I make the claim , I too am wrong. But none of this does anything to shed light on the issue of consiliarism or Gallicanism in the USCCB!
Likewise, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to manmade global warming. Check out the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.
The first claim I've already addressed: there is no certainty to be had regarding "manmade global warming". Regarding your reference, I'll stick to hard science and ethics rather than popular propoganda.
Also, I'm working on an M.A. in Systematic Theology at Christendom.
Best wishes on your studies! I love to hear about fellow Catholics taking the initiative to pursue theological studies in a formal setting. No amount of personal, private study can compare to the live exchange of ideas that occurs in formal theological studies. I grew in my intellectual and spiritual life so much during my undergraduate and graduate years in theology, and I continue to do so as I am in graduate philosophy now. Enjoy your time at Christendom!
Gabe,
I'm just saying that Archbishop Migliore is plain wrong on an issue that has nothing to do with Catholic tradition or doctrine: There is no such thing as man-made global warming.
Perhaps you have not read the 18-page report that Archbishop Migliore is referring to. It would help if you read actual data and make your conclusions from it and understand that this is thermodynamics we're talking about, not political ideologies. To deem global warming as part of a political agenda is absolutely ridiculous. Again, let us not fall into error by trying to put every problem that we are faced with into the conservative or liberal categories. We're Catholics, let's not act like Ann Coulter who equates recycling with promotion of safe sex.
At the same time, the responsibility we have as stewards of creation is part of the corpus of Catholic doctrine and part of moral theology as John Paul II said in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis:
The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own. Nor is it an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church's tradition. Its main aim is to interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology. (John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis 41)
Needless to say, why someone would claim that concerns around climate change stem from a political agenda is beyond me.
Katerina, you need to get out more. Global warming is predominantly about power and politics and has actually little to do with improving the environment although the left dresses up their little game in such. Tom
ps And if you don't think Global Warming Caused by Man isn't the new secular religion I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.
Let me point out that I posted a video sometime ago that completely explodes the global warming myths propagated by the IPCC:
http://www.americanpapist.com/20...al-
warming.html
I'm sure M&K would be all in favor of hearing both sides of the debate.
Also, Katerina said: "You know what I think is laughable? That American Papist thinks that global warming is the new "secular religion." Perhaps some of you are missing the whole concept behind humans as the imago Dei and the responsibility towards the rest of creation that it carries."
What I find amazing is that you choose to wake me up from my moral dormancy by accusing me of ignoring that humans are made in the imago Dei.
Now, how is that in the least bit charitable towards me or my readers? Are you trying to spoil for a fight? Is that seriously going to accomplish anything? I normally delete baited comments like this one and I will continue to do so unless you find a more constructive way to voice your disagreement in my comment boxes.
What I find amazing is that you choose to wake me up from my moral dormancy by accusing me of ignoring that humans are made in the imago Dei.
Now, how is that in the least bit charitable towards me or my readers? Are you trying to spoil for a fight? Is that seriously going to accomplish anything? I normally delete baited comments like this one and I will continue to do so unless you find a more constructive way to voice your disagreement in my comment boxes.
I find it interesting that, in the course of discussion, when someone suggests that an unwarranted and impulsive comment is laughable, suddenly that same person is accused of lack of charity. As G.K. Chesterton put it, some claims cannot be refuted due to their groundless nature; they can only be ridiculed.
Now, the Papist wrote: "I post this because global warming is in many ways steadily becoming the new "secular religion"." But for whom? And how? Have many environmentalists claimed this for themselves? Is not such a caricature and such derision an example of lack of charity? The Papist needs to understand that such unsubstantiated and hyperbolic claims will draw the ridicule of many. But for the Papist to then draw the "charity" card in an effort to quell disagreement with his position seems to me to be a concession to the absurdity of his assertion rather than
genuine concern for the limit-concept of charity.
If the Papist wants to back up his ludicrous remarks, I think he should and ought to. But threatening censorship over what seems to me to be an appropriate mocking of a silly and undignified assertion is not charity but blogging totalitarianism.
Oh, and by the way, that video that was posted is quite ideological. Katerina, who works in the big oil business and possesses a substantial scientific background, will be posting on the nature of the Apostolic Nuncio's remarks as well as on the video's shortcomings.
TJM,
Thanks for assuming that I need to get out more. Perhaps I don't know much even though my former job dealt quite a lot with quantifying CO2, NOx, SOx, and other gas emissions from byproducts resulting from fossil fuel processing and their impact on the environment.
Folks, this is what happens when people try to make Catholic doctrine fit in our political ideologies. Come on, we know better than this. Let's do it the other way around and try to make policies fit the truths we all believe in.
Thomas, aren't you doing your Masters on Moral Theology? I think you are... I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but either way, did you take classes on social doctrine? They are considered part of moral theology... and protecting our environment and creation as a whole is one of the ten principles on which Catholic doctrine is based upon.
Katerina,
Sadly, Sacred Heart's sole Moral Theology class on Catholic Social Teaching (MT 850) is restricted to M.Div. candidates only, which suggests that Sacred Heart does not consider Catholic social doctrine to be a central issue in moral theology, let alone general theology. In my experience in graduate theology and in your own experience studying for your MA at the University of St. Thomas School of Theology, we know that exceptions can be made, so perhaps non-M.Div. students can enroll by special permission. However, the fact that Sacred Heart indicates that MT 850 is an M.Div. course is enough to keep many of its students from raising their consciousness to Catholic social doctrine's important place in the overall scope of moral theology.
There is another class at Sacred Heart, Public Issues and Christian Morlaity (MT 770), which touches on certain social doctrines, but from the look of the course description, issues in law and economy dominate. This is too bad given the recent flurry of environmental statements coming from Pope Benedict XVI and the Holy See which are classified as responses to empirical public issues.
Interesting side point...
I was reading Michael Novak the other night and he insisted that, because America is an "experiment", a new Catholic spirituality must be forged that matches with the American ideal. I thought this to be quite odd and yet quite poignant. Novak's cryptic neo-Scholastic view of grace and nature has crept into the sub-consciousness of many American Catholics, inverting the traditional sense of grace perfecting nature (a la Aquinas), grace correcting nature (a la Augustine) or grace elevating nature (a la Gregory of Nyssa). This new "Novakian" model posits nature as viritually static and grace simply fills in nature's gaps or builds upon the natural sphere. This mentality helps explain Novak's confusion and disappointment with Pope Benedict XVI's, Cardinal Martino's and Pope John Paul II's social teachings and pronouncements. It also helps explain why some Catholics brand the Curia or even Benedict XVI as "anti-American" or "too European", as if criticism of any single tenet of American domestic or foreign policy is actually a virulent hate or fear of American itself. Would that more American Catholics read the right books!
I don't know if St. Thomas has a class on social doctrine either. I know the guys in the diaconate class and the seminarians do have to take it for college credit as part of their ordination process. Either way, the Achbishop has the faculty of St. Thomas giving talks on these doctrines all over the Archdiocese to raise awareness, which helps a lot, and I've only taken two classes at the Seminary, which don't have anything to do with social doctrine, but we have discussed them somewhat.
Saying that environmentalism is a "secular religion" or "religion" unto itself is a popular cliche. I'm not familiar with any Catholic Church statement that says this directly.
I liked what Cardinal Biffi had to say though:"the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist."
http://www.zenit.org/english/vis...html?
sid=103757
So does that simply mean that the Antichrist will be, among other things, a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist? Or does that mean that there is something evil or anti-Christian about being a pacificst, ecologist and ecumenist? Of course, if the latter is the case, perhaps if the Antichrist has black hair or enjoys opera there is something inherently evil in possessing those traits as well.
Katerina,
UST offers a course entitled "Social Justice and the Church" (MLTHE 6334) which covers everything from the family to the environment, just like the Compendium of the Catholic Social Doctrine of the Church. And the course is not restricted to M.Div. students only.
Man, Katerina and Michael are after some kind of prize for "most pompous young bloggers."
Look: here's the thing. Global warming/climate change is a hypothesis. One may draw certain moral conclusions, I suppose, from the hypothesis, but none of it is really worth waving around as any great manifestation of Catholic social doctrine.
Here's the thing that K and M just aren't getting:
1) Bishop A uses Scientific/social scientific data/theory. Emerges with Conclusion A
2) Bishop B uses Scientific/social scientific data/theory. Emerges with Conclusion B.
Which is "Catholic social teaching?"
Do you really believe, that in 2000 years of political, economic and social realities and theories that all bishops of the world have worked from the same premises and come to the same conclusions?
K & M seem to be infected with an odd sort of ecclesiasticalism. A reverence for bishops' statements just because they are bishops. Which doesn't work, because bishops disagree.
I'm happy to see that K&M have also plummed the depths of Sacred Heart's educational programs, without ever talking to anyone who has attended, taught or received formation there? Are they at all aware of the AOD's long history of social justice innitiatives? We're awash in the stuff all the time, trust me.
Sigh...
One of Michael's best friends teaches at Sacred Heart.
Man, Katerina and Michael are after some kind of prize for "most pompous young bloggers."
I can testify that Katerina is a woman of deep Catholic humility. No lie--eveyone who meets her loves her. It's quite remarkable. I, on the other hand, am likely the bearer of a pompous disposition. And while I appreciate the suggestion that I am deserving of any prize, I assure you that I have no aspirations to win any accolades.
Global warming/climate change is a hypothesis. One may draw certain moral conclusions, I suppose, from the hypothesis, but none of it is really worth waving around as any great manifestation of Catholic social doctrine.
This is quite the double mistake: not only have you misrepresented us, you have conflated two of our positions. First, the moral issue we stress is care and concern for the enviroment, which Benedict XVI has continually insisted Catholics take more seriously. Second, Catholics, by virtue of this moral charge, ought to resist the temptation to characterize global warming in partisan or cultic terms. Rather, Catholics ought to seek out the probability of the hypothesis so that they can accurately assess and apply the moral implications.
I'm happy to see that K&M have also plummed the depths of Sacred Heart's educational programs, without ever talking to anyone who has attended, taught or received formation there? Are they at all aware of the AOD's long history of social justice innitiatives? We're awash in the stuff all the time, trust me.
As Katerina has noted, one of my closest friends teaches at Sacred Heart, so I know quite a bit about what's going on there. Also, as an aspiring professor of theology, I keep a watchful eye on many theology programs in the U.S.
I'd still appreciate a name. I know practically everyone on the faculty. email if you prefer. perhaps we can arrange a personal meeting sometime and end this rediculous combox tax.
Commenting by HaloScan
