California bishop opposes ballot measure to delay environmental rules
October 13, 2010
Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, California, has voiced his opposition to a ballot measure that would delay implementation of some environmental rules.
The California ballot question, Proposition 23, has been put forward by sponsors who argue that increased environmental regulation will hurt an already vulnerable economy, raising costs for consumers and endangering workers’ jobs. Bishop Blaire argued that the regulations are warranted because pollution also entails costs and mankind has a moral duty to protect Creation.
The bishop’s editorial against Proposition 23 does not invoke the authority of the Church, but argues that readers should accept the logic of environmental protection.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: impossible -
Oct. 14, 2010 10:54 PM ET USA
I agree with all of the previous comments, with one semantic, but substantive, correction; in unum's comment: it should read, "and the gates of orthodoxy should not prevail against it." Right after the Bishop teaches and preaches agains the intinsic evils promoted by Catholic politicians and encourages his Priests to do likewise, he will earn some credibility.
Posted by: unum -
Oct. 14, 2010 9:43 AM ET USA
Our political bishops believe the Church should continue its progressive journey, and the gates of conservatism should not prevail against it. These bishops are following the path of the Rev. Robert Drinan, the Jesuit Representative from Massachusetts. In 1980, Pope John Paul II demanded that all priests withdraw from electoral politics, since no man can serve two masters. Pope Benedict would be wise to extend this policy to ALL politics.
Posted by: dover beachcomber -
Oct. 14, 2010 12:58 AM ET USA
Though it's true we have a moral duty to "protect Creation", there's no duty to do so through the ruinous measures that Prop. 23 seeks to delay. Why this tendency among so many Catholics to favor coercive means to force the achievement of moral ends?
Posted by: Savonarola -
Oct. 13, 2010 9:09 PM ET USA
Another example of a bishop sounding off in a prudential area, not involving faith or morals, about which he probably knows little.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Oct. 13, 2010 2:45 PM ET USA
...thereby diluting whatever authority he may enjoy. They just WILL not learn the rule that when it is not necessary to say anything it is necessary to say nothing.