The Pope's environmental encyclical has been released, discuss here.

[Rhamiel]

Um, we're against it. Pretty famously, actually.

that's good

 

[Rhamiel]

a quote from Pope Benedict XVI
“When making use of natural resources, we should be concerned for their protection and consider the cost entailed – environmentally and socially – as an essential part of the overall expenses incurred.”

Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2010

 

[MikeK]

that's good

It is good. We should all be seamless garment pro-lifers, and we should demand that our politicians - especially the ones we support but also those that we oppose, are on board with the protection of all human life including the weakest among us, the elderly, the unborn and, as this Encyclical beautifully explains, the not-yet conceived. We have been called to action, now let us collectively take action. Catholics will decide if this will be the moment that we got serious about loving our brothers or yet another in one ear, out the other teaching that seems to ask too much of us.

 

[Rhamiel]

It is good. We should all be seamless garment pro-lifers, and we should demand that our politicians - especially the ones we support but also those that we oppose, are on board with the protection of all human life including the weakest among us, the elderly, the unborn and, as this Encyclical beautifully explains, the not-yet conceived. We have been called to action, now let us collectively take action. Catholics will decide if this will be the moment that we got serious about loving our brothers or yet another in one ear, out the other teaching that seems to ask too much of us.

I agree with you Mike

here is the problem I seem to have with some people on these issues

you ask them what is the best way to protect the environment?
they say "make more restrictive laws on businesses and individuals, use oppressive taxation to limit the usage of natural recourses"
stuff like that

you ask them what is the best way to get rid of abortion
you get answers "five more money to public education so mothers will know their children will have a chance for a better life, increase the welfare state"

and if you talk about making abortion illegal you get laughed at

we need both, positive alternatives, but we also need the force of law, I mean it is normally a crime to kill your own child

like if I just said "we need to encourage companies not to harm the environment by giving them more money and making sure they do not feel judged or looked down on by Christians" you would say I was out of my mind

sorry to be getting off topic, this thread is to talk about the encyclical, that is what I started with until I was questioned by others here for my enthusiasm over what was said

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's not what the Pope said. He specifically said that government needs to play a role as well.

From his encyclical:

Individual buy-in is more important. Government doesn't need to be a nanny.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Individual buy-in is more important. Government doesn't need to be a nanny.

Well, that's one opinion. Not the Pope's opinion. But an opinion.

 

[LoAmmi]

you ask them what is the best way to get rid of abortion
you get answers "five more money to public education so mothers will know their children will have a chance for a better life, increase the welfare state"

and if you talk about making abortion illegal you get laughed at

we need both, positive alternatives, but we also need the force of law, I mean it is normally a crime to kill your own child

I don't think you're laughed at so much as people tell you it isn't something that's possible. The US Congress could not pass a law that made abortion illegal across the nation because the Supreme Court ruled that such a law was not constitutional. What you need is a Constitutional Amendment. But when you look at how an amendment is passed, you'd realize just how much you're asking and why it's almost impossible to think such a thing would happen.

Otherwise, you're looking at the Court overruling Roe v. Wade, which it hasn't done and I find it doubtful to ever happen unless some president stacks the deck with specific people on the Court (but the country as a whole would probably suffer greatly were that to happen).

So what are you left with? Helping mothers know they have options. And... screaming that they're murderers? Which doesn't help stop abortions.

 

[MikeK]

I agree with you Mike

here is the problem I seem to have with some people on these issues

you ask them what is the best way to protect the environment?
they say "make more restrictive laws on businesses and individuals, use oppressive taxation to limit the usage of natural recourses"
stuff like that

you ask them what is the best way to get rid of abortion
you get answers "five more money to public education so mothers will know their children will have a chance for a better life, increase the welfare state"

and if you talk about making abortion illegal you get laughed at

we need both, positive alternatives, but we also need the force of law, I mean it is normally a crime to kill your own child

like if I just said "we need to encourage companies not to harm the environment by giving them more money and making sure they do not feel judged or looked down on by Christians" you would say I was out of my mind

sorry to be getting off topic, this thread is to talk about the encyclical, that is what I started with until I was questioned by others here for my enthusiasm over what was said

Like anything, we need to look at the root causes of the actions we want to stop. While I would love to see an abortion ban passed, I don't think it's likely. It is certainly worth pursuing. We have shown that we are able to effectively ban the use of many industrial and agricultural agents and place strong restrictions on others though. The candidate that favors the Church's seamless garment pro-life policy including environmental, abortion, gun control, just wage, etc concerns will get my vote. If that candidate doesn't materialize, then we demand that they do. Together we are powerful and can drive change, separate we cannot. Simply voting for yet another in a long line of lip-service pro-lifers is not going to effect the change that we are called to. It is time to call for something new and better.

 

[Rhamiel]

a constitutional amendment is possible, hard but possible
restrictive laws like in Texas are possible raising the standards so that many abortion clinics have to close
raise taxes on clinics that preform abortions 700%
use zoning laws to limit where abortion clinics can set up
there are all kinds of ways to denture people from having abortions

now I think we should also make sure that women know they have options, that pregnant women are taken care of, physically, emotionally, economically and spiritually
I think we need to work on dealing with systemic injustices and inequalities that hurt many americans, these are ways to foster a culture of life

but anyone who is getting upset that I talked about ways to detour people from having abortions
those are the same tactics that enviromentalists want to use against companies
carbon tax, higher and higher regulations, zoning laws

what is the old saying? what is good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[MikeK]

Individual buy-in is more important. Government doesn't need to be a nanny.

If individual buy-in worked, we could safely get rid of the FDA and NRC and let our nuclear and food and drug industries self-regulate. That, of course, is at odds with the Pope's sentiments and, I think, common sense. The government can do what self-serving industrialists who have to provide value to their shareholders every quarter will not.

 

[LoAmmi]

a constitutional amendment is possible, hard but possible

Remember you need states to agree to it. You can pretty much forget about a place like New England or New York. Plenty of other states wouldn't be willing. I think it's not possible, but I could be proven wrong.

restrictive laws like in Texas are possible raising the standards so that many abortion clinics have to close
raise taxes on clinics that preform abortions 700%
use zoning laws to limit where abortion clinics can set up
there are all kinds of ways to denture people from having abortions

Have to be careful not to make laws that the Court would see as banning it. They would be unconstitutional.

but anyone who is getting upset that I talked about ways to detour people from having abortions
those are the same tactics that enviromentalists want to use against companies
carbon tax, higher and higher regulations, zoning laws
what is the old saying? what is good for the goose is good for the gander

Companies have not been granted the right to pollute and release greenhouse gasses by the Supreme Court. You're comparing apples to plates.

 

[MikeK]

a constitutional amendment is possible, hard but possible
restrictive laws like in Texas are possible raising the standards so that many abortion clinics have to close
raise taxes on clinics that preform abortions 700%
use zoning laws to limit where abortion clinics can set up
there are all kinds of ways to denture people from having abortions

now I think we should also make sure that women know they have options, that pregnant women are taken care of, physically, emotionally, economically and spiritually
I think we need to work on dealing with systemic injustices and inequalities that hurt many americans, these are ways to foster a culture of life

but anyone who is getting upset that I talked about ways to detour people from having abortions
those are the same tactics that enviromentalists want to use against companies
carbon tax, higher and higher regulations, zoning laws

what is the old saying? what is good for the goose is good for the gander

I don't oppose laws against abortion, I call for them. They should be honest, none of this "at any cost" stuff. I am all for setting limits on gestation or even banning the practice altogether. I am against medically unnecessary laws like the requirement for ultrasounds which strike me as undue oversight. I don't want the State telling medical practitioners what they need to do beyond what is medically required. Similarly, I don't favor selling credits to gross polluters or punishing trade with countries like Russia who refuse to deal with their messes - I favor putting hard limits on what is and is not acceptable and enforcing those limits.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I don't oppose laws against abortion, I call for them. They should be honest, none of this "at any cost" stuff.

Can you give an example of a law against abortion that you think was "at any cost"? What kind of law discouraging abortion do you think would be reasonable? Would you at least support a law that would require an ultrasound?

 

[MikeK]

See above.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Before anyone gets too much of a tingle in their leg about Patriarch Bartholomew's statements, remember he is not some kind of "Orthodox Pope" who represents all of Holy Orthodoxy. He is a patriarch. One of many.

Personally I am ok with fighting global warming and climate change. But the big elephant in the room is population. If everyone goes out and has seven kids, that seems to run counterproductive to the pope's words. On one hand we're called to have large families and use NFP (which not only my wife and I found awful and ineffective, but I know many others who have had such experiences), and be open to life constantly, on the other we should leave a small carbon footprint. No to contraception, yes to fighting climate change. Yes to putting as many bodies as possible on the planet, but no to the carbon footprint they leave. I'm confused....

 

[Fantine]

I'm up to page 40. It is very scholarly and very comprehensive. The problems of waste, loss of biodiversity, water shortages, deforestation, overconsumption, and climate changes are discussed in the context of faith, our position in the human family, and the very real human cost of greed.

I ended at a section discussing how the information explosion can cause us to ignore the wisdom of the past and lose our capacity for deep intimate relationships. So much to ponder and appreciate, using the wisdom of previous Popes as a foundation.

Loved the section on St. FRANCIS.

 

[MikeK]

I'm up to page 40. It is very scholarly and very comprehensive. The problems of waste, loss of biodiversity, water shortages, deforestation, overconsumption, and climate changes are discussed in the context of faith, our position in the human family, and the very real human cost of greed.

I ended at a section discussing how the information explosion can cause us to ignore the wisdom of the past and lose our capacity for deep intimate relationships. So much to ponder and appreciate, using the wisdom of previous Popes as a foundation.

Loved the section on St. FRANCIS.

It really is almost too beautiful to take in, isn't it?

 

[ebia]

As often occurs in periods of deep crisis which require bold decisions, we are tempted to think that what is happening is not entirely clear. Superficially, apart from a few obvious signs of pollution and deterioration, things do not look that serious, and the planet could continue as it is for some time. Such evasiveness serves as a licence to car-rying on with our present lifestyles and models of production and consumption. This is the way human beings contrive to feed their self-destruc-tive vices: trying not to see them, trying not to acknowledge them, delaying the important deci-sions and pretending that nothing will happen.

 

[RKO]

Individual buy-in is more important. Government doesn't need to be a nanny.

The good old conservative cop out... How is individual buy in working for say, abortion?

 

[RKO]

double post