Can a Catholic believe in climate change?

[Gnarwhal]

This isn't my question, but rather one that was posted on Reddit earlier today. It's a question we've all seen a dozen times probably, and I think most Catholics just automatically assume that with Francis promulgation of Laudato Si that we somehow shouldn't question everything that's taught about so-called climate change and that the issue is so well agreed upon that it's past debate.

As Catholics we absolutely should be interested in creation care, which is the idea of caring for the environment in a way that sustains it and keeps it in balance, but NEVER at the cost of our own well being. Which is where the climate change becomes so disordered. It secular philosophy of climate change seems to run wholly contra to Genesis 1:28 which mandates two things: 1) be fruitful and multiply, 2) subdue the Earth and rule over it.

Secular climate change philosophy has as its core goal a massive reduction in the global human population. Its central thesis is that this man-made, that we are the problem and the only solution is to 'bring things into balance' by reducing how many of us are on the planet. As things are right now there are too many of us for the world's natural systems to compensate for our waste and CO2 output, and that a reduction would fix that.

Baloney.

That thesis right there violates both mandates in Genesis because it places humanity lower on the totem pole than the rest of creation, and it clearly opposes life because it would require both some kind of intervention in conception to control birth rates and in with some of the extremist elites like Bill Gates running wild out there it would also lead to the caused deaths of millions—which I believe Covid might have been an instrument for (or a beta test).

What are your thoughts on this? And if you agree with my sentiment how do you feel about the fact that a Pope issued an encyclical that essentially accepts and supports the secular climate change philosophy?

 

[zippy2006]

Catholics can believe in climate change, specifically in some attenuated form of the secular doctrine of climate change. I think you are pointing to the excesses of that secular doctrine, which Catholics cannot adhere to. That's fine, but I don't think climate change in itself is wedded to those excesses.

Let's take one issue: overpopulation. It is not unreasonable to think that overpopulation is possible, and a Catholic who thinks it is possible will wish to avoid it. The manner in which a Catholic is permitted to avoid it will be limited. For example, they cannot kill people or abort babies or contracept. But they could do other things, such as choose to have five children rather than seven, or limit their resource consumption to make room for others.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Catholics can believe in climate change, specifically in some attenuated form of the secular doctrine of climate change. I think you are pointing to the excesses of that secular doctrine, which Catholics cannot adhere to. That's fine, but I don't think climate change in itself is wedded to those excesses.

Let's take one issue: overpopulation. It is not unreasonable to think that overpopulation is possible, and a Catholic who thinks it is possible will wish to avoid it. The manner in which a Catholic is permitted to avoid it will be limited. For example, they cannot kill people or abort babies or contracept. But they could do other things, such as choose to have five children rather than seven, or limit their resource consumption to make room for others.

Interesting perspective, I can see the merits of it. But regarding having five versus seven kids, I thought that's not a choice we get to make to begin with? I thought we're either open to life or we're not and we're supposed to leave the rest up to God?

 

[zippy2006]

Interesting perspective, I can see the merits of it. But regarding having five versus seven kids, I thought that's not a choice we get to make to begin with? I thought we're either open to life or we're not and we're supposed to leave the rest up to God?

This is a thorny topic, but one overarching agreement between the different positions is that one could abstain from the marital act in order to avoid conception, for the good of the family. For example, if a Catholic couple has a large number of children, and the introduction of more children would place severe financial strain on the family, then they could forego the marital act for the sake of the family.

The thing about overpopulation is that it doesn't exist. But if it did exist, then a similar sort of reasoning could hold.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm not sympathetic to the church's teaching on contraception.

This is a graph of world population growth -

How long do you think the earth can sustain that kind of growth, given that we're alreay having real problems due to climate change, which is real, not imagined? And if population growth is slowing down, it's not because Catholics are using NFP. If you plot where the pill came in, it's right where the graph takes off like a rocket!!

People of All Religions Use Birth Control and Have Abortions

www.guttmacher.org

The percentage of women who have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning is nearly the same across different religions. According to newly updated 2017 data†:

• 99.6% of women with no religious affiliation have done so;
• 99.0% of Catholics;
• 99.4% of mainline Protestants;
• 99.3% of evangelical Protestants; and
• 95.7% of people with other religious affiliations.

Catholic women are using the pill just as much as everybody else, but they're not going to tell their priest about it. To quote an otherwise faithful Catholic woman I was talking to years ago, "What my husband and I do in the bedroom is none of the Pope's business!"

I'll quote my old Protestant pastor on this one and I think he was correct. "I think the contraceptive pill was God's gift, given largely through Catholic researchers, given at the very time that population growth was becoming a real problem in some parts of the world."

Pope John XXIII set up a commission to look into the issue of the then recent pill, and it was expanded by Paul VII. Both recommended use for married Catholics, but Pope Pius decided to take the minority ruling. I haven't got much respect for his decision. The church is just wasting it's time hoping that most Catholics are going to adhere to this ruling.

Pontifical Commission on Birth Control - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After John XXIII's death in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and over three years expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and 5 women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals.)[1][page range too broad][2][page needed]

Majority report[edit]​

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][page range too broad][4][page needed][5] This report was approved by 64 of the 69 members voting.[6] According to this majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:

The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman – that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives – makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded.
The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.[7][8]

Minority report[edit]​

One commission member, American Jesuit theologian John Ford (with the assistance of American theologian Germain Grisez) drafted a minority report working paper that was signed by Ford and three other theologian priests on the commission, stating that the church should not and could not change its long-standing teaching.[1][page range too broad][4][page needed][5] Even though intended for the Pope only, the commission's report and two working papers (the minority report and the majority's rebuttal to it) were leaked to the press in 1967, raising public expectations of liberalization.[5][9]

The rationale for issuing the minority report was spelled out:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 [when Casti connubii was promulgated] and in 1951. It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which Popes and Bishops have either condemned, or at least not approved.[10]

Apparently the Holy Spirit could not possibly have been speaking through the Protestant Churches in 1930, and in 1951. As a former Protestant I think that's an insult. So the five hardliners couldn't possibly accept the Protestants were right? So what!

He took the hardline decision of five members and ignored the other sixty four, including "16 theologians, 13 physicians and 5 women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals." And then he was surprised when thousands of priests and religious resigned.

Like I said I think the old pastor was correct. When I was born there were about 2.7 billion people. Now there's over 8 billion. That's a threefold increase in 70 years. If the population increased by the same rate there would be about 24 billion in 2093, 72 billion in 2163, 216 billion in 2233 etc. Want to tell me what the church's policy is going to be then?

I'm not the least bit impressed.

 

[zippy2006]

How long do you think the earth can sustain that kind of growth?

Buddy, the rate of population growth is literally projected to be negative in the near future. Your understanding of population growth is about as robust as your understanding of contraception:

 

[Bob Crowley]

If the rate of population growth is going to be negative in the near future it will be because women and men are using contraceptives.

Contraception and family planning around the world – interactive

Where has the highest rate of male sterilisation? How many people in sub-Saharan Africa are on the pill? Explore a world of contraception data

www.theguardian.com

A record number of women now use contraception. The latest figures from the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs show 64% of married and cohabiting women used modern or traditional methods of contraception in 2015 – a significant rise from 36% in 1970. But the figures show wide disparities between and within regions and countries.

To argue this is due to NFP is a complete furphy. Meanwhile the church tries to apply it's ideology of "tradition at all costs" when it comes to closing the stable door on contraception.

But the horse bolted 60 years ago

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That thesis right there violates both mandates in Genesis because it places humanity lower on the totem pole than the rest of creation, and it clearly opposes life because it would require both some kind of intervention in conception to control birth rates and in with some of the extremist elites like Bill Gates running wild out there it would also lead to the caused deaths of millions—which I believe Covid might have been an instrument for (or a beta test).

The thesis does not place humanity lower than the rest of creation. It merely holds humanity accountable and responsible for the poor stewardship up to this point. Same goes for population. I am reminded of the parable of a man building a tower.

Luke 14:28-30 ​

“Is there anyone here who, planning to build a new house, doesn’t first sit down and figure the cost so you’ll know if you can complete it? If you only get the foundation laid and then run out of money, you’re going to look pretty foolish. Everyone passing by will poke fun at you: ‘He started something he couldn’t finish.’

It is a parable advocating foresight, planning and common sense.​

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Climate change is real and people know it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618308977

How Can We Adapt Together? Bridging Water Management and City Planning Approaches to Climate Change

Different dynamics of climate change, population growth, and urbanisation challenge water service providers (WSPs) and those managing urban planning. The scientific community has been evidencing the concept of sustainable urban water management (SUWM) as a driver to foster the integration of the...

www.mdpi.com

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722004823

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877343523000106

 

[Wolseley]

I believe that the climate is changing, yes.

Do I believe that mankind is the cause of it? No.

Do I believe there's anything we can do to stop it? Again, no.

I think that we may be contributing to climate change, sure; but our portion of the overall change is insignificant. The Sun is the major driver behind climate change; various astronomical cycles throughout the ages have caused our planet to heat or to cool, depending on where we've been in our position to the Sun. And the climate is going to continue to change regardless of what we do.

It's happened before, many times. Earth appears to go through these cycles where the temperature rises dramatically in a short period of time, releasing a whole bunch of carbon dioxide, things get very warm----and then the temperature suddenly drops precipitously and slams us into an ice age. This happens like clockwork about every 100,000 years or so; the ice age lasts for about 90,000 years, and then it takes 10,000 years for the planet to warm up, the system collapses, and we start all over again. Milankovitch cycles: we get closer to the Sun every 90,000 years or so. Nothing we can do about it.

https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2020/07/Climate_Change_Eccentricity-2.mp4

Now, have there been fluctuations in these warm/cold periods? Sure, due to a number of causes; volcanism and asteroid strikes are two examples. But they didn't have much of an effect on the overall cycle. It still got hot for a short period, and then mighty cold for a much longer period. We have been gradually coming out of an ice age for the entire span of human history, or about 100,000 years. We still have polar ice caps left over from the Pleistocene Maximum, but we're getting closer to Old Sol, and the temperature is getting warmer.

Guess what happens next? Ever see the movie The Day After Tomorrow? Hope you have your thermal undies ready, because it's gonna get chilly.