Mark,
I know you and I have butted heads repeatedly about science, but I have to say, this is one post about Catholicism and Science that I agree with (well, except the details where you state why you doubt climate change :)).  Great post.

.........GOOD ONE…....very insightful…..thanks…......AMEN !!!!!!!!!!

Asdk yourself:
If Al Gore and the other “Global Warming” alarmists really believed their own hype, would they have the large “carbon footbrints” that they do?
And if it’s okay to put “Climate Change” into a VBS course, do they also have sections on “unconstitutional and wasteful entitlement spending”?

Mark, Whether or not “climate change” is real or even can legitimately be disagreed upon is not the point.  I agree with the person who asked the original question: What on earth is a VBS program doing talking about “climate change” at all? Having put on VBS programs for up to 150 kids at a time for more than a decade, I can tell you that I would stay far away from any program that talked about “climate change.” Why spend time on something that is (1) not doctrine, (2) not even a “Catholic position” on, and (3) likely to cause more disunity than unity when kids bring the message home to their parents, uncles, aunts, whoever.  If the poster had said that the curriculum talked about being good stewards of the earth, which God has given us dominion over and which we are responsibile to care for—fine; that IS Catholic teaching. (But it still should be only a *very* small part of a program that primarily designed to reach out to “unchurched” kids and introduce them to Jesus, to let them know about His amazing love for them and the salvation He offers them.)  But “climate change”?  No thanks!

Climate Change (no longer called Global Warming, donchano)is in a VBS program b/c it’s a quasi-religion, explaining everything for its faithful adherents - tornadoes in AL, hurricanes back when, drought, floods, etc,

I see climate change on a daily basis. I have to, I’m a mailman. Other than that, thus far, global warming (call it what you will) only happens in the movies.

Climate Change (no longer called Global Warming, donchano)is in a VBS program b/c it’s a quasi-religion

Or, alternatively, it’s there because some honest Catholics, having made an honest prudential judgment (like, you know, the Vatican has done), have decided that discussion of the Catholic doctrine of care for creation can include some mention of climate change and they have absolutely no intention whatever of engaging in a quasi-religion.

Of course, assuming this does involve the effort of extending charity rather than just instantaneously firing off a tribal shibboleth to condemn brother and sister Catholics about whom one knows nothing.  But that is, after all, what Paul is talking about when he speaks of preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

When will we resume thinking as Catholics and stop getting all our instructions on how to unthinkingly respond from the manufacturers of our culture and politics in DC, NY and LA?

Amy:

I haven’t seen the program so I have no idea how much content is devoted to climate change.  My guess would be very little.  However, I can easily envision it being mentioned.  If you are dealing with younger kids, stories of Eden and the flood, both naturally feed into a discussion of care for creation.  If you are dealing with old kids, they’ve *already heard* about climate change at school, so it’s a natural cultural point of contact for discussing the Church’s teaching on creation as well.  The notion that the gospel is about something *other* than the redemption of the created order afflicted by sin is, in fact, a deeply Protestant idea, not a Catholic one. As though discussing the redemption is solely about the redemption of individual humans from sin and not about how creation groans to see the sons of God revealed.  There are a dozen ways a mention of climate change can feed into this larger discussion without it turning into a Gaia worship festival.

Mr. Shea,
I find your stance woeful and inadequate and evasive, a polite term would be “greenwash” spiritual scrip. Calling the science to be judged on “marketing” and than suggest “dishonesty of some scientists”, obviously relating to the stolen emails that were later judged by independent peer panels to have NOT been altered or dishonest, is not correct. A more accurate explaination would be that it was a propaganda campaign by “dishonest” vested interests to keep the status quo.
I do not feel that the vatican being “carbon neutral” is enough leadership to tackle this moral issue.
The science is pretty clear and has been validated (please read Dr. James Hansen book, “Storms of My Grandchildren”, Bill McKibben’s, EAARTH and Dr. Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky”.
Unfortunately, Global Warming will be less forgiving the Jesus and saying prays will not tackle the problem. Praying without action, in this case, will go unanswered.
We must pray that we have the wisdom and courage to face this crisis today and take the necessary steps to tackle this moral issue today.

I find your stance woeful and inadequate and evasive, a polite term would be “greenwash” spiritual scrip.

And I find your note to be judgmental, inadequate and dogmatic.  A polite term would be “importing your culture war obsession the Faith and trying to make it dogma.”

Calling the science to be judged on “marketing” and than suggest “dishonesty of some scientists”, obviously relating to the stolen emails that were later judged by independent peer panels to have NOT been altered or dishonest, is not correct. A more accurate explaination would be that it was a propaganda campaign by “dishonest” vested interests to keep the status quo.

So you say.  And yet it does not seem so to me.  Now you can treat that as my honest assessment and an attempt to make an accurate prudential judgement or you can assume bad faith and keep trying to make this about me being an intellectually bad (i.e. dishonest) person despite the fact that you know not one thing about me.

I do not feel that the vatican being “carbon neutral” is enough leadership to tackle this moral issue.

Dunno if you are Catholic or not, but whatever the case, it is not the Vatican’s job to take leadership in this department.  The task of the bishop of Rome is to proclaim the gospel of Christ.  Doing their bit to be carbon neutral is one way to live out the gospel prudently by example.  But it’s not the main mission.

The science is pretty clear and has been validated (please read Dr. James Hansen book, “Storms of My Grandchildren”, Bill McKibben’s, EAARTH and Dr. Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky”.

So you say.  However, the “‘Shut up’, he explained” approach, which is what your note boils down to is simply the flip side to the people above who are assuming that anything less than full-throated contempt for global warming makes you a Bad Catholic.

Unfortunately, Global Warming will be less forgiving the Jesus and saying prays will not tackle the problem. Praying without action, in this case, will go unanswered.

If you can show where I condemned action, you’d have a real point.  The purpose of my post was to show that there is a legitimate variety of opinion here.  Your purpose is to declare “dishonest” anybody who doesn’t agree with you.

We must pray that we have the wisdom and courage to face this crisis today and take the necessary steps to tackle this moral issue today.

Prayer is good.  Imperious panic-mongering and shouting down of skepticism, not so much.

@ Jeremy Giels above…  are suggesting that praying to Jesus Christ ( God ) is useless because Jesus ( God ) has no power to help us with our planet…which HE created HIMSELF?  ..And that only prayer for human wisdom can save the day…only we can save the planet..not God?  This is absolutely absurd.  The same global warming activists of today were screaming that the next ice age was here back in the 70’s and 80’s.  The weather gets crazy from time to time..it changes.  I’m sure those unlucky Americans out west in the ‘30’s thought the end was near during the great dust storms.  Unrecorded climate history greatly out surpasses recorded climate history and that needs to be remembered to keep things in perspective. What we’ve gotten used to weather wise in our country over the past 60 years or so is just a small blip on the radar.  Things change, as does the weather and climate that were accustomed to.  But again, to suggest that Jesus is powerless against HIS own creation is silly, that’s like saying Captain Planet could kick the Lord’s ass in a fist fight.  After all, wasn’t it Jesus who calmed the waters while out to sea with HIS disciples and on another occasion, walk across those same waters?...

@ Jeremy Giels above…  are suggesting that praying to Jesus Christ ( God ) is useless because Jesus ( God ) has no power to help us with our planet…which HE created HIMSELF?

No.  He’s saying that faith without works is dead.  Try reading charitably.  It does wonders for clarity.

I truly appreciate your balanced attitude and recognition of the fact that both political extremes tend to spill over into theology. I have similar views, and quite frankly, am alone in this in my area, which is sharply divided between those on either end of the spectrum who like to claim that God is on their side alone.
Like you said, a good Catholic can buy into the Climate Change spiel (or not). Including this in the Catholic Vacation Bible School is a good way to provide “equal time” to “life issues”.
Anyone for starting up a “Signs of Contradiction” organization? The entire spectrum of social/temporal issues could be represented without compromising others. Then the true face of the Church could be shown and known.
Keep it up.

Seems Mark I may have touched a nerve and you reacted with a stomp.
Seems your mind is made up and I must admit it is far easier to be in denial that actually face the “what is’. OK, let us all continue the status quo and wager that it is not influenced by man emitted greenhouse gases. So continue with your made up “cultural wars” and such and be pious.

Seems Mark I may have touched a nerve and you reacted with a stomp.

Um, no.  It seems *I* may have touched a nerve and you reacted with a stomp.  I blasphemed the dogma of Anthropogenic Climate Change by daring to suggest that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.  You rebuked me in righteousness and called me dishonest, because no good and decent person can have doubts about this matter of dogma.

Seems your mind is made up and I must admit it is far easier to be in denial that actually face the “what is’. OK, let us all continue the status quo and wager that it is not influenced by man emitted greenhouse gases. So continue with your made up “cultural wars” and such and be pious.

I urged nobody to continue the status quo.  I said rather that a Catholic can subscribe to a variety of opinion on the matter (including yours) and be a good Catholic.  But your intolerant attitude is that anything other than complete agreement with you is “denial”.

Adams:

Thanks.  There is such an organization.  It’s the Catholic Church. :)  But you are perfectly right that more Catholics need to make that fact known.

http://www.john-daly.com/

Mark, you said in an above post the following: “...the “‘Shut up’, he explained” approach, which is what your note boils down to is simply the flip side to the people above who are assuming that anything less than full-throated contempt for global warming makes you a Bad Catholic.”  REALLY?  I reread all the posts above that post, and I don’t see where *anyone* is implying what you said they are implying. Are you putting *me* in that category simply because I dared to suggest that a very short VBS program meant for 3- to 10-year-olds doesn’t need include the politically-charged concept of man-made global warming, while at the same time saying that it IS good and proper to point out that we need to care for and conserve God’s creation?  If I am not one of the “people above” (plural) whom you accusing of calling you a Bad Catholic because you have less than “full-throated contempt for global warning”, then which posters (again, note your use of the plural) are???  Sorry, but I just don’t see it.  Methinks you’re a bit too defensive (as I, myself, have become now!).

    God bless you, you Good Catholic you! :)

    BTW, I would suggest everyone read the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomberg.  Mr. Lomberg was a college professor of statistics who was (and is) an environmentalist.  He was challenged one time to look into global warming when a colleague stated that he wasn’t sold on the idea.  Mr. Lomberg set his graduate students on a project that would prove that colleague wrong and prove global warming.  Except that he ended up confirming what that colleague said and casting doubt on the concept of man-made global warming.  The book is extremely well-written and thoroughly documented.  I’ve read other books about global warming—both “pro” and “con”, but this one seemed to me to be the most honest and balanced. (Regardless, though, none of this is the issue when discussing whether or not this belongs in a little kids’ VBS curriculum….)

It’s a bit disturbing that so many Catholics do not follow the Pope’s messages on climate change. Both Blessed John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI both have issued statements on the human-caused effects of climate change and have pressed for sustainable development. Please read more about the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change, and the Vatican’s new report on climate change, “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene”. The Pope’s on board - why aren’t you?

Bjorn Lomborg use to be a climate skeptic - but now he recognizes it as a danger, caused by humans, that must be dealt with.

On the greater question, climate change should be kept in PSR, CCD or VBS to show how our faith applies to every-day issues and isn’t something just to be dusted off on Sundays. I doubt people would balk about a program that talked about poverty or abortion. Yes, topics should be age appropriate for children, but at some point we need to show them their faith has application outside of the Church building.

@littlefisher: I agree that we need to teach children how faith applies to life, but the age- and program-appropriate way to do that in VBS would be to teach kids that we need to be good stewards of the earth—recycle, don’t waste resources, don’t pollute, share what we’ve been given, etc.—without delving into “man-made global warming”

@Reality Check: Bjorn Lomborb is BALANCED. While he says that humans have an impact on the earth and that climate change is really happening, he also puts it in its rightful place.  The fear-mongering and (documented) bad science that goes on in the name of climate change will get us nowhere.  He crunches the numbers to find out that the solutions that nearly all the global warming alarmists are suggesting (such cap-and-trade legislation) would end up reducing global temperatures one-tenth of ONE DEGREE over a CENTURY at a cost of HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS of dollars.  Is this really the most pressing thing to do with our nation’s money right now?  How many lives could using that money in other ways save?  Bjorn Lomborg is more of a big-picture guy: how can we reduce human suffering and help the people who need the help most on this planet?  I have no idea whether Mr. Lomborg believes in God, but his ideas are consistant of the second of Jesus’ great command—that we love our neighbor as ourselves.  (Notice that Jesus didn’t tell us that after loving the Lord our God with our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength, we needed to love the environment as ourselves.  No, we must love PEOPLE.  Of course, we must take care of the planet—God has given us dominion over it—but that can’t be an all-consuming passion for us at the expense of millions of lives, jobs, diseases that go untreated, etc.  For more about all this, see Lomborg’s second book, “Cool It!”)

Theologically, climate change may be discussed. Catechetically, it is shaky ground. Catechists should never use something speculative as the foundation of their teaching, lest a disciple turn from Christ over something that was presented as ‘church teaching,’ but wasn’t. I only ever go into speculative theology in catechesis if its in response to a direct question, and I give every possible answer one may hold while being Catholic.

There seems to be a built inertia in our collective consensus. The Quakers provide a circle to reach one. So did the native Americans with a talking stick, which I had the privelege to partake with the great Indian “Slow Turtle” before his death. On a planetary scale with 7 billion (that was 3 billion when I was born only 50 years ago),that seems impractical. The political system has beem ineffectual, the religious community has been pleasantly “concerned” and the business “sector”, hostile and dishonest. The public, confused and doubtful, by a successful campaign by the ones who profit from these dirty, dangerous products, namely coal and oil is immobile.
Twenty years have gone by since Dr Hansen and his colleagues came forth publicly and alerted the world of the danger. What has happened? Just continued growth of these fossil fuels to which we have been no less been addicted to, like a drug.
OK, debate, ponder, waffle for another twenty years (change is really NOT depended on time-either you change or you don’t). Hey, once in a 500 year flood (like they have now in the Mid-West), just the new normal. Record drought in Texas, pray for rain as the Governor requested.
The climate constantly changes.  All that energy we are placing in the climate system just transforms itself in a benign manner. Now everyone can rest easy. Goodnight

Again, do all the people who are in favor of promoting the theory of Global Warming in VBS also favor teaching the kids that “wasteful entitlement spending” is ruining the economy?

@Micah - Perfect!
@Jeremy - Do you really think that teaching kids “global warming” for 20 minutes in a VBS will change any of your gloom-and-doom scenario?
@Don - touche.  But seriously, I don’t even touch upon the subject of abortion in VBS—not becaue there is anything “controversial” about it (direct abortion, according to unchangeable Catholic teaching, is alwasy objectively wrong, and Catholics cannot legitimately hold another opinion on that, unlike the problems of how to solve poverty, crime, global warming, etc.) but the subject of abortion just doesn’t belong in a program which is intended to introduce little kids to the love of Jesus and “set them on fire” with love for Him.  VBS isn’t intended to teach kids everything about their faith. We have to remember the *purpose* of the program in choosing curriculum that will help accomplish that purpose.

@Amy - I guess the real question is depth vs. breath for VBS/CCD/PSR programs. You say VBS is just meant to introduce children to the love of Jesus; however, I’m not sure when (or if) you would say it is appropriate to bring up the every-day issues of things like abortion, poverty, social justice or even climate change. There’s a real danger in making Catechism classes extremely generic - all Christian faiths teach that Jesus loves; what makes the Catholics different? If kids’ parents don’t believe that birth control is wrong, or that climate change is a real problem, or that we must oppose threats to marriage - VBS/CCD/PSR are these kids’ only way to learn about these issues. I agree with littlefisher: topics should be age appropriate for children, but shouldn’t be excluded.

You’re saying Bjorn Lomborg is a credible source, but he was once a skeptic and now isn’t. You’re citing oudated information (“Skeptical Environmentalist” - 2001, “Cool It!” - 2007, he stopped being a skeptic in 2010). 

You say you don’t even know if Lomborg believes in God, meanwhile our Pope has issued multiple calls-to-action to Catholics globally to address the impacts and causes of climate change. Lomborg was wrong initially about Climate Change - yet you hang your hat on his new analysis on the costs associated with doing something about it.

@Don - I was unaware the Pope has spoken about “wasteful entitlement spending” as he has about climate change. Although, I do know he has spoken at length about how we need to protect the human person, and the USCCB has pushed for universal health care.

“Twenty years have gone by since Dr Hansen and his colleagues came forth publicly and alerted the world of the danger. What has happened?”

I think some scientists and far too many activists and politicians have contributed to a complacency and lack of action given that overly dramatic announcements about ‘tipping points’, ‘tens of millions of climate refugees by 2010”, etc.

Logically speaking, if the tens-of-decades long, carbon-spewing industrialization has brought us on the brink of no return, then it seems we need to be shutting down entire industries, whole economies, and our way of life. (What a minute…the ‘union busting’ events in Wisconsin were—according to the ‘left’—reportedly an attack on the middle class, the same middle class and materialistic lifestyle that environmentalists and progressives declare a danger to life on planet earth.)

Calls to reduced carbon emissions to 1990 levels are nonsensical then if carbon emissions from the past 100 years has brought us to this near disaster, and those reductions will not dent or avoid the calamity the is purportedly upon us.

If doom is upon us, why are you using a computer? Why are you consuming electricity? Why would any Catholic parish have air conditioning? Why are you taking vacations?

@Dan - Again, I’m interested in hearing about the Pope’s dire warnings on those “wasteful entitlement spending” bits you want incorporated in the VBS/CCD programs.

Technology, electricity, air conditioning etc. are NOT the problems - the excessive consumption of fossil fuels is. There is no question, technology has made our lives better and can be used to serve God’s will; however, the Pope calls us to action to stop climate change. The Vatican is carbon neutral as someone mentioned earlier - you don’t have to be a luddite to address the problem.

Creation Care is something extremely important to our nations youth - especially in our overly materialistic society. Pope Benedict XVI delivered the following excerpt below at World Youth Day 2010.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

“At present there are a number of scientific developments and innovative approaches which promise to provide satisfactory and balanced solutions to the problem of our relationship to the environment. Encouragement needs to be given, for example, to research into effective ways of exploiting the immense potential of solar energy. Similar attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change. Suitable strategies for rural development centred on small farmers and their families should be explored, as well as the implementation of appropriate policies for the management of forests, for waste disposal and for strengthening the linkage between combatting climate change and overcoming poverty. Ambitious national policies are required, together with a necessary international commitment which will offer important benefits especially in the medium and long term. There is a need, in effect, to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all. The ecological problem must be dealt with not only because of the chilling prospects of environmental degradation on the horizon; the real motivation must be the quest for authentic world-wide solidarity inspired by the values of charity, justice and the common good. For that matter, as I have stated elsewhere, “technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations towards development; it expresses the inner tension that impels him gradually to overcome material limitations. Technology in this sense is a response to God’s command to till and keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror God’s creative love”.
@Amy - Should we argue that the Pope shouldn’t have brought climate change up since he was speaking to youth? That he should have instead only spoke of Jesus’ love?
@Dan - Should we argue that our Pope is wrong and that climate change isn’t a problem or that we shouldn’t be concerned about it because some fellow named Bjorn disagrees? Should we disagree with his assessment that use of technology is a response to God’s command?
@Mark - Or should we, instead, read our Pope’s words, reflect on his thoughts, and prayerfully take action to protect what God has given by teaching our youth?

Mr. Shea rightfully discusses Prudence, only he focuses on the prudence of adults considering their approach to climate change rather than the prudence of using climate change as the basis of a VBS program.
  The “Connecting Kids to Justice” piece of this particular VBS program promotes the Catholic Coalition for Climate Change.  Have you seen the twelve groups in this coalition?  Many well-known dissenter groups belong to it, yet the only name you will see listed in the program is Catholic Relief Services.  (Is it prudent of CRS to form a coalition with these groups?) Here are some examples:
  Carmelite NGO. They fully support the UN Millennium Goals including an unmet need for family planning (we know what that means). The Carmelite NGO was a co-sponsor of Consumption and the Rights of Mother Earth held at the UN on May 11, 2010. (Too bad the website mentions nothing about the rights of the unborn child.)
  Catholic Health Association of the United States. The president of this organization is Sister Carol Keehan, who supported ObamaCare in defiance of the USCCB, and supported St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix after Bishop Olmstead sanctioned it for performing abortions.
  Leadership Conference of Women Religious. This organization champions major dissidents of the Church, including Sr. Jeannine Gramick who spoke at their 2010 Leadership Conference.  She founded New Ways Ministry, a group the USCCB has warned that it does not have an authentic interpretation of Church teachings.
  Conference of Major Superiors of Men. Their 2008 keynote speaker was Sister Elizabeth Johnson whose recent book the USCCB said should not be used in Catholic schools.
  Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. This organization has failed to concern itself with the moral decline of “Catholic” colleges, and thought the Church guidelines for higher education were unclear as to whether President Obama should speak at Notre Dame.
  You can look at the slides on the web site. On Day 4 kids are encouraged to challenge their parents (authority) a lot more than I am comfortable with:
  1. Recycle.
  2. Ask your parents or caregivers to do the laundry using cold water instead of hot or warm, or do the laundry yourself using cold water.
  3. Pack your school lunches in reusable containers instead of in plastic bags that get thrown out.
  4. Help your parents coordinate the rides with your friends and their parents when you go to the same events or when they bring you to school.
  5. Turn the thermostat down in the winter and up in the summer.
  6. Walk or bicycle to places when it’s safe and possible.
  7. Eat your vegetables-eating less meat means more energy is saved, as it takes a lot of energy to raise meat. (Note: many of our brothers and sisters in other countries don’t have resources to eat meat, so eating less meat means we are also standing in solidarity with them.)
  8. Plant a tree- trees absorb carbon and they give off oxygen- which we need to breathe!

And then they take a PLEDGE (clearly undermining parental authority) on day 5.  I/We Pledge to:
  ? Pray and reflect on the duty to care for God’s creation and protect the poor and vulnerable.
  ? Learn about and educate others on the causes and moral dimensions of climate change.
  ? Measure how we- as individuals and in our families, parishes, and other affiliations- contribute to climate change by our own energy use, consumption, waste, etc.
  ? Act to change our choices and behaviors to reduce the ways we contribute to climate change.
  ? Speak out for Catholic principles and priorities in climate change discussions and decisions, especially as they impact those who are poor and vulnerable.
  How charitable would you find a VBS program that said things like, “Missing Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.  Help your parents get to Mass every Sunday,” and then had them take a pledge to do so?
  Taken individually, each piece makes me uncomfortable though each one is not really wrong; collectively, however, they are problematic.  Why even walk this line with elementary students?  They get this climate change stuff everywhere, so how about getting some fundamental teaching about the Faith in a fun VBS program instead?
  How far can you push “prudence” before it no longer is?

I am proud our Church promotes sensible use of resources and sustainable development. It is after all common sense.

The VBS program should discuss the falsified data that started the global warming scare. Also, how an effort like this can cause legislation and compulsory changed behavior with respect to purchasing goods and services. Those that pre-invested in these same goods and services are smiling all the way to the bank.

Yes, there are a lot of lessons in virtue or lack thereof that can be drawn from this situation.

@Kris - You miss the very first partner with the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Although, I’m sure you’ll find some reason to be dissatisfied with them as well.
I suppose you’re right: VBS shouldn’t teach children to “pray and reflect on the duty to care for God’s creation and protect the poor and vulnerable.” After all, you’re teaching your children to do that already at home, right? In fact, there shouldn’t even be VBS programs since all parents teach their children everything there is to know about their Catholic faith - right?

Please realize, it’s been said time and time again on this topic, the Vatican is the first carbon-neutral country on the planet, and the Pope has spoken numerous times, to children, about the dangers of climate change and our moral obligation to do something about it. Ultimately, you’re disagreeing with the Pope here and the teachings of the Church the Pope represents.

@Reality check - Yes, specifically the USCCB Catholic Campaign for Human Development—let’s not go there.

@Reality Check: You lump VBS in with CCD and PSR (an acronym I’m not familiar with—what is it?) as if they were the same things.  They way *our* programs are run (I’m the DRE & Youth Director of my parish), VBS is VERY different from CCD and need to be treated differently. The VBS programs I’ve helped run over the past decade are designed to reach out to LITTLE kids (ages 3-10) who don’t know much about God, perhaps their parents have never even taken them to church, perhaps they have never even been baptized.  The program is a 4- or 5-day, 3-hours-a-day-day, time of games, music, snacks, stories, and crafts that introduce these tykes to the love of God and teach them the BASICS of Christian teaching (God loves you, Jesus died on the cross for you, etc).  This is quite different from CCD (which we now call ‘R.E.’—Religious Education) and our youth ministry program; I have no objections to bringing up “controversial” things in CCD and youth ministry in which there is a more appropriate format for discussing such things, in which you have a relationship with the kids already from seeing them week after week and also in church and at church activities, and in which the kids are already Catholic (or at least Christian—we have a few non-Catholic Christians in our youth ministry program).  But I still maintain that it is not appropriate to a VBS program—which has an entirely different nature from that of a parish CCD program—to bring up global warming. 

ALSO, you’re right—I haven’t kept up with Bjorn Lomborg’s evolution in thinking on the subject.  I had read his first book—the Skeptical Environmentalist—which, as you have pointed out, is probably almost 10 years old.  But I think he made a lot of good points in that book about the current thoughts on combating climate change do not constitute the best use of our global resources to help the most people.  Whether or not there should be caps on carbon emissions is an ADULT discussion, however, or a high school one at best.  The age-appropriate discussion for little kids is as I have outlined in a previous post—reuse, recycle, don’t waste energy or things, don’t pollute, etc.

The real question is, is global warming man made or a natural event there lies the problem no more no less. Because there are changes taking place. So lets keep on listening and analyzing the information with an open mind. The Holy Father Benedict XV1 said we should be watching global warming. Remember if we reach the point of no return there is no looking back it’s to late, and the point of no return is the hardest to make.

After having butted heads with you on several other topics, Mark, hopefully you’ll be glad to hear I think you’re spot on with this post.

The main point is that it doesn’t matter if there is climate change or not - we still have to exercise prudence and moral responsibility with regards to future generations.

Speaking of exercising prudent stewardship over the resources we want to pass on to future generations, Mark, what about Catholics being admonished to become much more politically active in support of cutting federal spending, reducing the national deficit, getting our trade balance with foreign countries into a more equitable position? Our economic and trade issues are every bit as much potential to lead to disastous consequences as the environmental ones.

While we’re at it, what about Catholics being admonished to reduce their consumer spending and debt, to purchase only big-ticket items that receive top ratings from Consumer Reports, and to invest a sizable perecentage of their monthly income in a diversified portfolio that will help provide for their retirement years? Wouldn’t that be prudent stewardship as well? Many Catholic families are facing significant financial problems that are the result of of their failure to do these things.

First, for those who brought it up, could you give me a definition of “sustainability” and “sustainable development.”

Second, the question posed to Mark was about Climate Change in a VBS curriculum, which I would like to address here.  Having participated in VBS with my kids for about 20 years now, I’ve never seen a topic like abortion or contraception addressed at VBS.  Why not, because it’s inappropriate for their age.  The background for the issue requires a certain level of maturity that VBS-aged children do not have. 

The background for the imbalance in the carbon cycle created by increased use of fossil fuels and the persistence of heat trapping chemicals in the atmosphere is as scientifically complex as abortion and contraception are morally complex.  This issue should not be simply reduced to “feel good” family efforts that may change attitudes but will do nothing to alter the climate. 

I know this statement flies in the face of Rene Dubos adage “Think globally, act locally.” but this issue is so grand that it requires global action, which was instigated through the Rio Earth Summit, the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent international agreements.  That said, further inquiry into the intricacies of the matter, such as the climate scenarios posed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, would help to solidify the involvedness of global climate change but I believe it would only serve to stupefy readers. 

My point being this, as previous commenters stated, care for the earth is certainly appropriate for a VBS-level maturity and I agree.  However, because of the complexity of the science of anthropogenic-caused climate change, it cannot be reduced to an elementary level and is inappropriate for a VBS curriculum because it asks our children for a level of maturity they do not yet possess.

Forgive me, I inappropriately used stupefy, I should have said “anesthetize” or “put to sleep” in my previous comment.

The Church has explicitly accepted the reality of anthropogenic climate change and called Catholics to address climate change in order to care for both God’s good gift of Creation, as well as the poor who are most impacted by its adverse consequences. 

Pope Benedict:

“Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family.” http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070901_symposium-environment_en.html

“Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change?” http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

Pontifical Academy of Sciences report (May 5, 2011): http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5256/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1163273

Catholic Coalition on Climate Change (http://catholicclimatecovenant.org)supported and endorsed by:

- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development; Migration and Refugee Services)
- Catholic Charities USA
- Catholic Relief Services
- Catholic Health Association of the United States
- Conference of Major Superiors of Men
- National Catholic Rural Life Conference
- Franciscan Action Network
- National Council of Catholic Women
- Leadership Conference of Women Religious
- Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
- Carmelite NGO

@Matt Watkins - the definitions of “sustainable” and “sustainable development” are hotly debated; however, those are terms used timed and time again by the Pope. At this time, perhaps the best way to define those items is by identifying what is UNsustainable, such as the overly materialistic society in which we live and participate in.
@Amy & Matt: I have been frequently amazed at the level of maturity and understanding that children possess. In reality, climate change and creation care may actually be easier for children to comprehend than the greater questions central to our faith; transubstantiation, Heaven, original sin, etc.

Yep.Saying CO2’s impact on accelerating an increase in global temperatures is debateable is tantamount to saying the same for tobacco’s impact on lung cancer. Whether the climate is changing on it’s own or not,it is not debateable that man’s impact from the use of fossil fuels is accelerating a “natural change” if that is happening or causing a change.Either way the negative sequelae are occuring and the POOR nations of the world will be most impacted.Remember:‘we are our brother’s keeper;and we are to be good stewards of God’s creation.” Additionally we should use the brains God gave us.

By denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change, Mr. Shea has adopted a position in direct contrast to that of Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops.

Mr. Shea has divisively asked Register readers to follow either him or the teachings of the Holy Father, and given this choice I will faithfully follow the See of Peter.

Dave:

You’d have a really devastating point if I’d insisted that Register readers “follow me” instead of, you know, pointing out that Catholics can be all over the map (including making the same prudential judgments as the Holy Father here).  Neither the Holy Father nor I are climate change scientists. We are dependent for our judgments on the information of experts.  At present, I don’t find the hype persuasive.  That’s not a demand that anybody follow me.  It’s a statement of my highly fallible personal opinion.  Meanwhile, feel free to go with the judgment of the Holy Father.  He may be right.  He may also be right about who will win the World Cup this year.  But that’s not a matter of faith or morals and, ultramontanist claptrap aside, that doesn’t mean I am being “divisive” to express my honest opinion in contrast to Rome on this prudential judgment.

@Mark - Going back to the initial issue here and re-reading your blog, I believe you have a very strong position without entering into the area where you yourself say you are not an expert. You say teaching climate change is not outside the scope of our Catholic faith, and that the Vatican is the only carbon-neutral country on the planet - clearly showing our Church’s dedication to solving the climate change. The disconnect is between the Pope calling for global justice and charity with regard to climate change, and you outright saying you think it’s a bunch of “hype”. Then, somehow, because the Holy Father and you are neither “climate change scientists” that some how frees all Catholics from obeying our Pope (after all - if you don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, why should you strive to become carbon neutral?). If a non-expert in the area of HIV/AIDS declares that there is global “hype” around the issue and that they are skeptical of its causes or impacts, does the declaration of their lack of expertise allow them to openly and loudly disagree with what our Holy Father calls on us, the faithful, to do? Does presuming the Pope has a lack of personal expertise on the issue free our non-expert from listening to his call to action? Do you not see how this could lead a person to believe “The Vatican thinks X is a big deal, I think they’re wrong, but since we’re both not experts, I can think, say, and do what I want.”?

Mark,

Your assertation that climate change is somehow “not a matter of faith or morals” is where your arguement breaks down, since morality is precisely the lens through which the Holy Father has viewed climate change.  The USCCB has explicitly stated:

“Pope Benedict XVI has continually emphasized the moral dimensions of climate change and our responsibility to care for creation,” and again, “The Catholic Church brings a distinct perspective to the debate about climate change by lifting up the moral dimensions of this issue and the needs of the most vulnerable among us. As Catholics our faith calls us to care for all of God’s creation, especially the ‘least of these’ (Mt 25:40). Of particular concern to the Church is how climate change and the response to it will affect poor and vulnerable people here at home and around the world.” http://www.usccb.org/jphd/csmg/2011/Global-Climate-Change-backgrounder-2011-FINAL.pdf

Given this reality, I maintain that the dissonance between your position and the Holy Father’s authentic teaching- which is grounded in morality and the intersection of faith and reason- divisively leaves Catholics in a position of having to agree with either you or Pope Benedict XVI.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. The Vatican and Holy Father (in addition to many, many reputable scientists) have spoken quite clearly about the facts of climate change and our obligation to take action in light of those facts. There may be a range of acceptable Catholic responses to those facts. But I don’t believe it’s correct to portray the facts as being seriously in doubt, or to argue that there is parity between the scientific evidence showing climate change vs. the claims of climate change skeptics.

Mark, excellent opening analysis. Here is a link to an excellent article that takes up the issue of Gaia worship you mentioned. Ironically, the activities of Morales and the U.N. (captured in the article) are applauded by Catholic Climate Covenant folks, so they cross your imaginary line.  http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_un_and_one_world_worship.html

If one reads the Pontifical Academy of Science announcement/brochure touted by CCC (upon which some of the comments above are based), one does not find a new level of scientific certainty but rather one finds the 2007 IPCC data, which has been discredited.

In addition, one finds the anthropogenic hypothesis referred to as “very likely” (a term of great scientific precision). And one finds the very contention made in the article — that the Himalayan glaciers are melting is not claimed to be a scientific observation but something they hope to observe (as it is difficult to observe, according to the booklet).

After reading the booklet CCC is touting as unarguable Vatican support, one realizes it is the same propaganda the radical left has been using elsewhere — only know they have co-opted the Vatican. Sad state of affairs.

If the current trend continues the CCC will soon come out in favor of blotting out the Sun because it is the primary driver of climate change.

Greg,

The thesis of anthropogenic climate change is supported by:

NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/

National Academy of Sciences http://americasclimatechoices.org/

Additionally, “Vatican working group calls for concrete steps to combat climate change” was released this past Thursday, May 5: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101834.htm

Even if you want to dispute the Noble-winning IPCC, which has not been “discredited” as you suggest (http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?section=Cathcom&id=37284), the Bishops’ application of prudence still applies:

“In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action.” http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

@ Faithful Franciscan, defining something by saying what it is not, is a poor means of definition something akin to asking someone to define a human and them answering “It’s not an elephant.” 

I am going away from Mark’s original post to address the terms sustainability and sustainable development, which have been defined and they encompass the triple-bottom line of environmental conservation, economic growth and proper governance.  This definition i sderived from the Brundtland report “Our Common Future,” written for the UN Council on Environment and Development in 1987.

Prior to this thoughts of economic growth and environmental quality were either/or and that economic growth was always at odds with environmental quality.  Sustainability emerged as a both/and scenario where economic prosperity and environmental quality were both achievable.  Lastly, an element of governance – social equity, empowerment, and participation – melded into the definition. 

Within the Church tradition, similar seemingly divergent schools of thought are seen in St. Benedict and St. Francis of Assisi.  The Benedictine’s “work and pray” altered their environment seeing it as a resource valued for its ability to serve people.  The Franciscan’s viewed the environment as a resource more for its aesthetic value.  Similar contrary views are shared by Sierra Club founder John Muir (more Franciscan) and Forest Service’s Gifford Pinchot (more Benedictine). 

Faithful Franciscan, you said “identifying what is UNsustainable, such as the overly materialistic society in which we live and participate in.”  I assume you mean what we have in the US and Europe and I’ll agree that western society is in many ways materialistic but it is also the most philanthropic, the healthiest and environmentally, with perhaps the exception of carbon emissions, the cleanest.  So we need to figure out what’s the good and keep it and get rid of the rest without violating subsidiarity.

Many companies, both multi-national and local, have embarked on sustainable practices like pollution prevention and are incorporating them into their business practices.  Do more companies need to do this? Certainly.  Do more people need to understand the “triple-bottom line” and both/and principles of sustainability? Certainly. 

Lastly, economic growth and development are the means for the rest of the globe to become healthier and cleaner.  As nation’s who have achieved it through unsustainable means, we, retrospectively, are trying to convince transitioning countries to do so more sustainably.  Those burgeoning countries often see this as interference to their achievement of modernization and a violation of sovereignty and the principle of subsidiarity.  I understand these countries’ suspicion, with the West’s history of colonization from the 16th to the 20th century, today’s west – the UN, the US, Europe, and Japan per se – is seen as using sustainability as a means of suppressing those nations in a new kind colonization.

Wow.  Forgive me, but I’m a bit confused.  I really like the idea (from the actual blog post) that Catholics can have ideas different from each other and still be living out their Catholic faith.  That we can be people of goodwill who disagree about where our faith takes us. 

Here’s the confusing part (from the commenters attitudes):  For “climate change”, we can be a good Catholic even if we disagree with what the Pope and Church teach about our moral obligation to minimize if not stop climate change.  But for “abortion”, we can NOT be a good Catholic even if we disagree with what the Pope and Church teach about our moral oblication to minimize or end abortion.

Well, with this actual issue, it’s amazing to me that of ALL the comments, only ONE has referenced what the VBS program actually teaches.  And only a few others have spoken to the actual Coalition (which does list USCCB but not CCHD).  I’m a DRE, have looked at the program, and don’t find any of it troubling to teach (for faithfulness or age appropriateness).  A lot of the concerns voiced here I just don’t see in the actual product. 

BUT - if any of you are concerned for your kids’ participation- why not just approach the VBS coordinator/DRE?  The key is since you honestly don’t know what’s included, just that the phrase “climate change” in a Catholic program makes you uncomfortable, approach in a low key and friendly way, and just ask to see the materials.  I’ll review stuff with parents OR send copies home.  Then, if there’s something specific- like the pledge- you can open a conversation about alternatives, such as having the pledge sent home or done during a separate family gathering.

FYI,the CCHD is part of the Department of Justice, Peace, and Human Development, the main source of funds for this coalition.  That means the USCCB money is go TO these other dissenting organizations through this coalition.

Another quote from Pope Benedict XVI:
“[the scientist’s]conclusions must be guided by respect for truth and an honest acknowledgment of both the accuracy and the inevitable limitations of the scientific method. Certainly this means avoiding needlessly alarming predictions when these are not supported by sufficient data or exceed science’s actual ability to predict.” from “Papal Address to Academy of Sciences,” Nov 06, 2006. http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=97759)

None of the previous papal or Vatican quotes demonstrate acceptance of ANTHROPOGENIC climate change; we are to be concerned about affects even though we disagree about the causes. A concern for the vulnerable is nothing new for Catholics.

Kris: Why would the Vatican want to go carbon neutral, if climate change isn’t advanced by anthropogenic causes? If climate change isn’t at least partially driven by human factors, what should be done to address its effects?

The current issue of First Things includes an article explaining why people like George Cardinal Pell of Sydney doubt the global warming alarmists.
As for why the Vatican has a far smaller “carbon footprint” than “green millionaire” Al Gore, they’re just trying to be nice.  Maybe you should ask Gore why, if he really beleives in global warming, he personally has such a large carbon footprint.
And if Vacation Bible School should cover political issues, why doesn’t it have a section on the neccessity of reducing wasteful entitlement spending?

Dan: Again, I’m interested in hearing about the Pope’s dire warnings on those “wasteful entitlement spending”  programs. Last I checked, the Catholic Church is in favor of things like Social Security and Medicare.

And as for the pope denouncing wasteful entitlemnt spending, here’s the link;

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=pope-bank-chief-slam-europe-over-debt-crisis-2010-05-23

Hurry up to add that to your parish’es VBS program!

Dan: You misread that article. Alternatively, the Pope has issued the following statement on social security programs and their deterioration in the face of competitive advantage in the global market:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
“Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers’ associations. Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60], for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.”