AmericanPapist Comments
I think Cardinal Pell's comments on global warming in which he calls global warming "superstition," "nonsense," and "semi-religious" make a lot more sense than Cardinal Martino's comments.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co.../new.php?
n=8678
I remember Pope Benedict (I think in one of his talks to the Curia) warning that environmentalism can become a religion with some. He does often say that of course we should be good stewards of the environment.
Thomas,
Take a look at Zenit today, their daily dispatches. It's dated 4/26/07 re the Pope's message on climate change.
However, I think Papa has also had brief messages to the faithful in his weekly Angelus message in the nature of being good stewards of creation.
Aloha from Hawaii ...
See Cardinal Biffi's statements during the Lenten Papal retreat. Extreme environmentalism, ecumenism and pacifism are the antichrist. People become too focused on these movements and therefore not on Christ. Cardinal Martino -"We have to start at the level of elementary schools, to make sure children are taught to respect nature and be aware of the problems of the world. We can't wait until they are older. This has to be done naturally in religion classes, in religious groups everywhere," I really hope this isn't a twofer here.
This is something I genuinely don't understand about Americans, Catholic or otherwise--the refusal to acknowledge that global warming exists, and that we need to move on it. Of course environmentalism can become an alternative religion, as can things like social justice, but I would sincerely hope that Pope Benedict would, indeed, promote the notion of our obligation to steward our dwindling resources responsibly if we don't wish to destroy God's creation. Frankly, I don't think your President gives any bigger a toss about Papa Benny's view on the matter than he does about anyone else's--he's hardly more likely to listen to a Papist leader than to listen to his buddies in the oil sector--but aside from that, this is an issue that I hope the Pope will address with fervour. Whether we should be teaching it in relgion classes is a separate issue. I'm just dismayed to think there are fervent Catholics out there who are on the everything-that-threatens-our-comfort-is-a-
godless-liberal-conspiracy side of things. But I'm beginning to realise that when it comes to religion, Americans are definitely Americans first, and Catholics second.
Thomas: Go check out John Allen's latest on this conference. There is definitely disagreement being voiced at the conference - skeptics are having their say.
So now, what of the "teaching of the bishops" on climate change that some are so keen that we follow?
Madame Sosotris: A few facts for you my friend. Unlike Uber-Lefty and energy hog, Al Gore, President Bush "walks the walk." His ranch in Texas by all accounts is extremely environmentally friendly and efficient unlike Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee. The left NEVER mentions that because it gets in the way of its script. I find it amusing that lefties think a true outdoorsman like President Bush is hostile to the environment while the "concrete-walkers" in Manhattan are SOOOOOO sypathetic on environmental matters. By the way, dear lady, Europe was much warmer in the middle ages than it is today. Tom
Europe was rather warmer, yes (then colder, during the so-called "Little Ice Age"); the entire planet, it would seem, was not. As well, this warming occurred over a period of about four centuries, not as many decades. This dear lady's doctoral studies focused on the Renaissance, so she is not entirely unaware of such matters, dearest.
I am delighted to learn that your leader is so ecologically-sensitive. I look for great strides in this matter from his leadership. But I won't strain my eyes for it.
Madame Sosostris says:
This is something I genuinely don't understand about Americans, Catholic or otherwise--the refusal to acknowledge that global warming exists, and that we need to move on it.
Madame Sosostris- Where is the proof that man made global warming exists? In any case, if the earth is getting warmer (very doubtful) where is the proof that this is a bad thing? The last time there was a warming phase in the 1400s there was an economic boom in Europe and a great advance in civilization and prosperity. If the earth is indeed getting warmer, that makes for a longer growing season with more crops. It also means less need for gas to fuel houses in winter. Just two decades ago, environmentalists were hysterical that the earth was getting cooler.
I would say Catholic tradition and Scripture state man needs to treat animal life with respect (only kill what you are going to use) and conserve and not waste God's natural gifts to us. After all, we have dominion over animal and plant life and with this dominion comes responsibility.
The hoax of global warming, though, has nothing to do with Catholic tradition. Why so many Europeans are so gullible when it comes to socialist fads is beyond me.
Madame Sosostris, have you read Cardinal Pell's comments on the religion of global warming?
The Holy See has a public position on global warming!
Putting aside partisan politics, you can find the Holy See's on-the-record position on any link between human activity and climate change here:
What is the Holy See's Current Position on Global Warming?
Michael:
So would I have been obliged, in the 17th century, when figuring out the physical movement of the cosmos, to follow Galileo or "the Holy See?"
Oh, and play an imagination game - if Cardinal Pell were elected Pope next week (God forbid, God keep our B16 for as long as He wills), would we be obliged to follow Cardinal Pell's opinion on global warming then?
Another question for Michael:
Would I then have to believe, if living in 1331, the five published sermons by Pope John XXII, 88 years old at the time, in which he claimed (from his own personal musings) that only Mary can have the true beatific vision in Heaven and that the saints in Heaven only see the human Christ, not the Divine Christ? His teachings in his personal sermons were condemned before his death in 1334, and he retracted them. In 1335, the Church reiterated its teachings that the saints in Heaven do have the beatific vision.
If Pope Benedict says man-made global warming is true, he will be wrong and the faithful will have no obligation to believe as it is a matter that has nothing to do with faith or morals, Tradition or Scripture.
What do you think of Cardinal Pell's views on the subject of global warming?
Yeah, I'm putting an end to this. Happily I have far better things to do with my time and energy than disabuse K&M of their reckless enthusiasms. Thoughtful individuals can come to their own reasonable conclusions without me taking the time to defend myself against all these accusations. Peace.
Madame Sosostris: Ah, so you recognize that long before the invention of the combustion engine, carbons, and hundreds of millions of more "evil" humans, the earth was warmer. How can that be? I am also please that you acknowledge that President Bush is actually more environmentally friendly by his actions, rather than his words, unlike Pharisee Al Gore, "do as I say, not as I do."(typical liberal). I fear Europeans are going out of business. Too bad they didn't heed the warnings of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. Instead they are buying into "An Inconvenient Truth." So long, Tom
ps Michael, I assume you are following Humanae Vitae instead of Gore's Global Warming Religion.
What Madame Sosostris said...
Another blogger has a good response here.
Gabe: I haven't read what any Cardinal has said on this issue, and it makes little difference to me; the point is not about what he said, or the details of what he advocates, which I'm sure many here know better than I. It is that I am astounded that no amount of rigourous scientific investigation seems to be enough to convince some people that they should, you know, perhaps give a toss about their stewardship of the world around them. I just don't understand this. Is this American paranoid fundamentalism creeping in, insisting that virtually everything that comes from the "outside" is automatically wrong or, at least, suspect? And, no, I'm not saying that this sort of denial is exclusively American, but it seems to have its strongest voice in your country. I suppose my husband's fairly simple explanation may be right: Things relating to lifestyle changes that would help guard our environment simply run counter to things Americans value in their "way of life"--big cars, bigs houses, big everything, and most of all, the complete individual freedom to do what they like, with no thought to consequences to the world or people around them. Good an explanation as any, I guess.
Michael, your beautifully-written entry was lovely to read, and I found your last few sentences summed things up nicely. Many thanks.
Elaine, while I'm not sure how I conveyed this discussion as a matter of obedience to the Pope (it's not), Galileo was correct precisely because he had scientific, empirical evidence that his position was the right one. The Church was wrong. I don't quite get why you would pick such a poor example here. (Although, for whatever it's worth, which is not much, the main problem the Church had here was that G. insisted on putting forward his observations as truth, point final, not as a theory. This is why G. actually got pretty good treatment from a goodly number of high-ranking churchmen who really thought he was quite reasonable.) The current Vatican has science on its side, and so this is why I hope the Pope will, indeed, encourage all who listen to him to pay attention to stewardship.
TJM, know what? There was more carbon in the atmosphere at one time, too, in the early Cretaceous period. We're talking about changes produced over _long periods of time_--anywhere from thousands to millions of years--not over, say, a century, which is what good evidence tells us we're looking at now. And again, the medieval instance referred to circumstances in _Europe_, not the entire globe, which is what is observable now.
There is the matter of false religion, which for Catholics is obviously a grave matter; but not everyone who simply believes the well-established fact that we are doing something to tamper with the environment in ways that stand to have serious consequences is following a false god. I cannot quite understand how these matters got conflated. I also, again, can't understand the contrarian impulse simpl
. . . simply for the sake of it.
Madame Sosotris- Why do I get the feeling you may not be as keen on many Catholic teachings--such as priestly celibacy, no women priests, the teachings in Humanae Vitae, etc--as you are about global warming, which is a huge hoax with no scientific evidence supporting it whatsoever? Show us all the proof.
In any case, many Europeans such as the Czech president do not believe in the hoax of manmade global warming either, so who is this "everybody" that Americans should listen to? You?
Stewardship means protecting the environment. The environment is best protected by capitalist prosperity, as anyone who has traveled around the world will tell you. Wealthy countries protect the environment far better than poor countries do, through national parks, stricter policies on pollution, and higher tax revenues coming from the capitalist prosperity that can be used to further protect the environment. Again, compare Malaysia to Indonesia or Thailand to Vietnam or South Korea to China.
In fact, Gabe, I am quite a keen proponent of the Church's teachings such as those you lay out here, and am not sure why you would draw the conclusion from what I say above that I am not. But your countrymen seem to see "liberals" under their beds these days as they once saw Communists, so I suppose that generalisations about people are invariable (if she believes x, she must believe / not believe y, etc.).
As for the glory that is rampant capitalism . . . well, I feel about it as Winston Churchill did about democracy: It's an absolutely terrible system, except for all the others. That is a little different from the faith (I gather that is the word) that I gather you have in it. Its track record when it comes to environmental stewardship is not exactly sterling. But I doubt you'd see it that way.
I don't believe I referred to an "everybody", or to any particular Europeans or European adminstrations, in speaking of global warming; I referred to science. Credible scientists, and credible science, make a very strong case for believing that human intervention has affected our planet in ways that stand to have serious consequences for us. Here in Canada (from where I'm writing), our far north acts as a pretty good laboratory in which the truth of this can be seen.
But why do I bother? No point in being a voice crying in the wilderness here. I am a person burdened by a heavy load of sin, but wilful ignorance is not, I think, one of them; I shall leave that to you and your fellows here, and go elsewhere in search of intelligent Catholic discussion. Maybe someone out there is actually discussing religious matters instead of just politics--and really _discussing_ them, with intellectual depth and reflection.
Maybe.
Madame Sosotris: Global Warming caused by man is very much open to debate. But the left-wing press conveniently surpresses the debate because they are far more rigid in their orthodoxy on this issue than good old Cardinal Torquemada of the Inquisition. It's a pity that your mind is closed like a trap. Your condescending attitude toward readers here is quite anti-intellectual and non serious. Perhaps Moveon.org is a better venue for your musings. Tom
Shorter Madame Sosotris:
I am going to go to other venues that are open-minded enough to agree with me.
For Madame Sosotris, Michael, and Katerina:
"Ocean Currents to Blame For Warming: Expert"
http://www.news.com.au/
dailytele...5012769,00.html
Gabe
1) This report doesn't say what his expertise is about
2) Doesn't also go to explain how the global warming is believed to affect ocean currents.
In other words, forgets the interpendence of the eco-system.
"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice."
- G. K. Chesterton
Paraphrase per today's hysteria as appropriate.
Paul
Of course GK Chesterton would be the first to point out that CAPITALISM is a major cause for the problems we see in the world today, and he would agree that our abuse of the world, in capitalistic excess, should lead to unsurprising, hurtful effects.
His distributionism is not helpful to anyone who wants to support capitalism and this unregarded excess and abuse of the environment, or the idea that our actions have no environmental consequences. In fact, that line of thought is a very modern one; early thought is that sin causes environmental disaster.... in other words, it goes to explain as we should expect... if you rape the earth, and not be its steward, you will suffer the consequences of your actions!
Anon: Why not share with us your evidence that GK Chesterton viewed Capitalism with disdain. In contrast, did he favor, Socialism, Communism, Totalitarianism? Capitalism seems far more fair and benign viewed against the other "choices." Tom
TJM
You got to be *kidding* me. Start with "Utopia of the Ursurers." Then move on to "The Outline of Sanity."
Some Chesterton quotes
Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business." - G.K.'s Weekly, 4/10/26
"Business, especially big business, is now organized like an army. It is, as some would say, a sort of mild militarism without bloodshed; as I say, a militarism without the military virtues." - The Thing
"All but the hard hearted man must be torn with pity for this pathetic dilemma of the rich man, who has to keep the poor man just stout enough to do the work and just thin enough to have to do it." - Utopia of Usurers, 1917
From the standpoint of any sane person, the present problem of capitalist concentration is not only a question of law, but of criminal law, not to mention criminal lunacy." - "A Case In Point," The Outline of Sanity
"[Capitalism is] that commercial system in which supply immediately answers to demand, and in which everybody seems to be thoroughly dissatisfied and unable to get anything he wants." - "How to Write a Detective Story." The Spice of Life
Here is an article over at Drudge describing the new religion of global warming: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
ne...id=afIESX3LdgnQ
It definitely is a new false religion: You must believe it on faith; you must act on it by changing your lifestyle and behavior; and it has dire world consequences if we don't embrace it. Instead of saving our souls, we must save the Earth.
There is no scientific proof for the religion of global warming, and all evidence to the contrary is rejected. A Non, Mike, and Marguerite's global warming can even spread from planet to planet (Earth to Mars) by some apparent type of karma.
Gabe
I guess you will also need to include St Francis of Assisi in this new religion. Will you also include St Paul who mentioned that the earth itself is to be saved through Christ?
A Non, What does St. Francis and Paul's teachings have to do with the hoax of manmade global warming?
"We must save the earth," is something both Francis and Paul accepted (of course, as mediators).
Commenting by HaloScan
