Why Must Common Sense Come From Outside FrancisChurch?

by
What's up with Pope Francis?

What’s up with Pope Francis?

At the Boston Globe there is some rare good sense injected into the frightening Laudato si’ flood of wastewater.

Watch your back, Pope Francis, you have no idea what conniving charlatans thou art lying down with when you go full green.

Your new flock will not settle for being junior partners. Unlike the African missions or the Home for Little Wanderers, they won’t be satisfied with the take from a mere second collection. An inconvenient truth is that greedy greens grab all the gelt.

Remember the Shrine of Solyndra.

These sticky-fingered moonbats even have their own pontiff, Pope Albert I, patron saint of masseuses.

The climate-change grifters are preaching an updated version of that old time religion. It’s still fire and brimstone — a London newspaper headline Friday declared, “Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because of climate change, warns expert.”

There is one major difference between these climate-change “experts” and most of the traditional clergy. The secular prophets of doom really do believe that global warming is destroying the planet, just as 40 years ago they thundered with equal fervor about the global cooling that was leading to a new Ice Age.

It’s still about salvation, saving one’s soul. Repent. Get thee to a recycling center. Separate thy trash. As in any new religion, the greens require devils to keep the credulous faithful in line. Instead of Satan and Lucifer, the fallen angels are now known as the Koch Brothers, and George W. Bush.

Like Thomas Dolby, this new pope appears blinded by science, or should I say “settled science.”

I don’t think the Pope is blinded by science.  I think he’s blinded by vice; the vices of anger, jealousy and pride.  He’s in a maniacal rush to accomplish everything he and his notorious compadres have been grumbling about for the past thirty years.  That’s why he’s in league with Catholic enemies.  As far as the Church goes, our Pope Francis plays to lose.

To stay au courant, Pope Francis this week issued an encyclical, airily denouncing the “harmful habits of consumption.” This goes over big with billionaires who travel in their own private jets.

The pope is particularly appalled by “the increasing use and power of air conditioning,” which you would think theologians would consider a blessing in this age of heat waves. Oddly, though, no mention of the pressing need for more bicycle lanes in Brookline.

The last time the Vatican moved this quickly on a scientific issue was back in 1633, when Galileo was placed under house arrest for life for the “heresy” of suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun, rather than vice versa.

Now, almost 400 years after that scientific breakthrough, the Vatican serves up this papal hot air.

“Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and in methods of production and consumption …”

After Joe Stalin once read a similarly windy sermon by an earlier pope, he famously asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?”

The question now is, “How many solar panels does the Pope have?” Wind turbines? Priuses?

On the bright side, the Pope says there’s no problem that a new global “authority” couldn’t solve, once we create “one world with a common plan.”

Sounds very feasible. Is Bernard Cardinal Law in the house? The pope is going to need someone to run his New World Order, and the devout Bernie is warming up in the bullpen — tanned, rested and ready to go.

I’m sure Pope Francis is basking in his early rave reviews. Of course his new politically correct friends are ignoring the rest of the encyclical, which is full of what Joe Kennedy II used to call “Catholic mumbo jumbo.”

The media are particularly ecstatic with the thought that his global warming polemics will “make for awkward reading among some Catholic Republicans,” as the Guardian put it.

Apparently the pope’s denunciations of abortion and sex-change operations won’t “make for awkward reading” among Catholic Democrats.

And that is the whole point.  The new bridled faux-catholic press is climbing and slogging through the Pope’s endless manifesto looking for catholic ideas.  Most of these soldiers are in progress.  They say, “I’m halfway, but I have this and this to say.”  But the media machine will simply ignore what they find.

The FrancisChurch agenda grafts leftist statism onto to a shadow Catholicism in order to ride the Church like a horse into the promised land of tyranny.  It’s Liberation Theology for the new millennium: UN climate governance.  The planet is a holy ecosystem and everything is Earth, is weather, is people, is poverty, is faith.  All religions are one in God’s tender mercy, just ask oh Francis, the One.  LoveLikeFrancis.com!

This is the crowning achievement of a consolidated world media: a manufactured cult, and not the Catholic Faith.

After all, Chris Dodd et al. never seem to let the odd divorce or their support for partial-birth abortion stop them from piously taking communion at, say, Ted Kennedy’s funeral.

One thing Pope Francis and the tree huggers can agree on — the need of all the faithful to ride the bus — a bus without AC, needless to say.

“Many specialists,” the encyclical notes, “agree on the need to give priority to public transportation.”

See you at Park Street, Your Holiness!

Somehow Mr. Carr is not the same easy sell you might find say, at the National Catholic Register.

I was disappointed today to see the great and brave Fr. Hunwicke echo the infuriating sentiment of Robert George, by calling for a docile ‘willingness to be taught’ by Francis regardless of what the hell he’s clearly peddling.

I would like to make a preliminary comment. I think it becomes us all to read this Letter intending to be taught by it and by the one who sits in the Chair of Peter and wears the Fisherman’s Ring. It is not infallible, but then, neither am I. We rightly condemn those who rubbished Humanae vitae when it was published; and those who do not accept the binding authority of Ordinatio sacerdotalis. We stand under our own condemnation if we treat this Encyclical with that same disrespect with which the Wolves malevolently treat the Church’s Magisterium. (This is still true, even though it is obvious that this Encyclical does not intend to impose dogma or definitively to settle a particular and precise moral question, as each of those two documents did.)

If we find in this or in any other Encyclical some particular teaching which we genuinely have trouble understanding or appropriating, then, in my view, the most fitting response is simply not to talk about that particular aspect of its teaching until we do find that we can speak positively about it.

I know that Father’s words come with a great deal of Catholic history including numerous papal encyclicals behind them, but really, enough is enough.  Does he see no difference between those who ‘rubbished Humanae Vitae’ and critics of this liberal high tax, big government, pro-poverty, pro-slavery, anti-Church capitulation to evil?

How much Hellish misery, Church dysfunction, and heresy must we endure before we can address the problem?  Docility before error is no virtue.  The problems in the world come from a failure of the Church.  That starts and ends with Peter.  His failure is ours too since we overlook it and we carry it forward.  It’s rooted in faithlessness, I’m sorry, I mean excess pastoralism.

We simply must separate the truth from the lies all the way to the top.  It’s no animus toward the man or the office, just the lies.  It’s love.  The Church’s true problems must be confronted, and gentleness won’t due.

How many more generations must be laid waste?

 

 

 

Vatican Archbishop: Don’t Try Calling Your Climate Denial Catholic Anymore!

by

 

Ready to do or say anything for the UN

Ready to do or say anything for the UN Church

Vatican Radio reports on the “Climate and Health” 68th World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, where Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi c.s., gave an adress.

In his presentation the Claude Rains-ish archbishop discussed the respect and protection of nature, technology, and the role of various nations in health and environmental issues.

It is a great honour to address this distinguished panel and audience on a topic of such urgent importance, not only to the technical and scientific community but to all people now living on our planet and, most especially, to the future generations who will follow in our footsteps.

The moral imperative to respect and protect nature is not a new topic for faith traditions. The Jewish and Christian Scriptures are replete with such exhortations, and most of the major religious traditions offer similar commandments. Man is not the owner of creation but its steward.  In more recent times, the leadership of the Catholic Church has publicly and forcefully expressed concern about the damage to nature being caused by a privileged few, while the health and overall wellbeing of the vast majority of humans is being threatened through no fault of their own. Pope Benedict XVI, expressed such grave concern on this issue that he was popularly labelled as the “green Pope”. Pope Francis continued this tradition and has encouraged a more profound reflection on this global concern. I am sure you are well aware already of the ongoing preparation of a special teaching document on climate justice, about which  United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, said: “I very much look forward to the upcoming encyclical by Pope Francis. It will convey to the world that protecting our environment is an urgent moral imperative and a sacred duty for all people of faith and people of conscience. It is critically important that people and their leaders hear your strong moral voice in the coming months.”

So the ancient scriptures, all the popes including the most recent and credibly Catholic Pope Benedict, and that UN-Vatican farce conference all agree this is urgent, urgent.

These religious leaders and technical experts left no further room for denial under the mistaken guise of so-called religious belief when they declared that human-induced climate change is a scientific reality.  They acknowledged the “very vital role” played by religions through their affirmation of “the inherent dignity of every individual linked to the common good of all humanity” as well as “the beauty, wonder, and inherent goodness of the natural world.”  They proclaimed as “our moral duty to respect rather than ravage the garden that is our home.” They noted the particular vulnerability experienced by poor and excluded people who are menaced by “dire threats from climate disruptions, including the increased frequency of droughts, extreme storms, heat waves, and rising sea levels.”

Don’t dare call your climate-denying a ‘religious belief!’  There’s nothing Catholic about climate skepticism, right Archbishop?

So they had a conference with the UN and a bunch of ‘experts’ and now they know that poor and excluded people are menaced by dire threats?  How can anyone possibly believe this?  What a perfect atheist idea to start calling this bunk ‘faith’ then turning it ‘c’atholic.

 

 

 

 

 

Vatican To Catholics: Don’t Like The UN? Don’t Buy Global Warming? You Must Be A Rich Capitalist!

by
Apostle of FrancisChurch

Apostle of FrancisChurch

It makes perfect sense, now that FrancisChurch has morphed the Catholic Faith into a UN vehicle, that her princes would sound exactly like cheap Democrat Party hacks and nothing like Christians.

The Vatican has interested itself in global warming, going so far as to stage an invitation-only exhibition on the matter, and to release through the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences the curious document “Climate Change and The Common Good.” The document’s main author is the Chancellor of the Academies, Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.

His Excellency was criticized by many for the low-quality, error-laden science in this document, but he received the most heat for buddying up to abortion and “population control” enthusiasts like UN boss Ban Ki-moon and economist Jeffrey Sachs.

Evidently, these critiques stung. The Archbishop returned fire, accusing his detractors of acting on the orders of a cabal dedicated to destroying Science — a charge which found sympathetic ears. But he couldn’t quite escape the scandal caused by his purposely associating with, and giving political cover to, abortion and contraception advocates. More explanation was called for, so he gave it.

In an interview with Stefano Gennarini, Sánchez shot back with an odd claim he has made many times, that the “climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.” Elsewhere, he included prostitution and “organ trafficking” as other results of global warming.

By any reckoning, this is an impressive list of evils. Yet what’s missing from his Excellency’s statements is any explanation of how exactly the slight increase in clement winter afternoons has caused abortion, prostitution and other grave human evils to increase.

I thought the Catholic Faith was about avoiding guilt by keeping from sin, not about exponentially multiplying extenuating circumstances until you have an excuse the size of Planet Earth.

Did the fraction of a degree uptick in temperature late last century make men more amorous? Perhaps the dearth of hurricanes and tornadoes  — the “climate crisis” has pushed these way down  — induced men to seek other excitement in their lives. Or again, maybe the minuscule accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide has shouldered aside oxygen, depriving our brains and lessening our capacity to reason.

“These are serious matters!” the objection will run. And so they are. But mentioning something serious doesn’t make you a serious person. There must be more than moral dudgeon backing a claim as … grandiose as Sánchez’s, namely that global warming causes abortion. There must be evidence. Is there? The answer depends on how reliable global warming theory is.

Not exactly.  If if there were such a thing as global warming it would still have nothing to do with abortion, all this new slavery everyone’s talking about, or drugs.

Many have fallen prey to the unscientific belief that predictions of doom are proof the predictions are right, and that therefore the theory which generated the predictions must be correct. Otherwise intelligent people commit these blunders because of fear, or because they are in the grip of environmentalist ideology, or, in the worst cases, because it is politically convenient.

The predictions of doom have been consistent: temperature is promised to soar ever upwards. The theory is that small boosts in carbon dioxide (compared to the atmosphere as a whole), by way of feedback mechanisms too complicated to explain here, are responsible for the rise. The predictions are consistent, all right. Consistently poor. No, worse than poor. Rotten. For nearly two decades, climate models have predicted rising temperatures, but the reality has been that there is no such increase.

Since the climate is demonstrably not changing in the direction or rate predicted, how could this non-event be increasing the incidence of abortion, organ harvesting and slavery?

Let me pose another question. Which is more likely to lead to more abortions:

(A) Global warming, through a twisting, fanciful chain of causality, which anyway hasn’t even happened yet, or

(B) The bolstering of the rich, influential, abortion- and contraception-friendly United Nations and radical NGOs, who can now claim to enjoy “Vatican support”?

Can this assessment be repeated often enough?  Handing power to the Leftist enemies of the Faith is always wrong and never the business of churchmen.

It is, or used to be, a fundamental principle of science that a theory was proved false when predictions made based on the theory were a bust. Even Einstein had to wait for Arthur Eddington to verify relativity’s predictions before scientists wholly backed the theory.

Sánchez was asked about this principle: “What do you answer to so called ‘climate skeptics’ who point to the lack of change in temperatures in the past 18 years and the difficulty in finding any definite correlation between human activity and large scale climate changes?”

His response was revealing: “I hope you are not [a skeptic] because then we would discover the true reason for these false accusations against us!”

Sánchez went on to hurl some false accusations of his own. He said climate change skeptics were all either members of the Tea Party or people with “incomes derived from oil.” Because, well, that would prove that everything they’re saying is false, wouldn’t it? Thank heavens no scientists who assert that man-made climate change is a crisis receive any income for their work, or support from billion-dollar foundations.

Archbishop Sánchez is keen on sustainability, which many take as a code word for population control. On this issue, he said that his Sustainable Development Goals didn’t “even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”

Everybody, even his Excellency, knows what such words are: dull euphemisms for population control and abortion. This is why he tried to deflect the moral implications of including these terms in Church documents by saying, “Some may even interpret [these terms] as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity.” If there is a polite, ecclesiastical way of saying “balderdash,” this is the place for it.

The Archbishop said that we “can rest assured that the two academies of which I am chancellor are against abortion and against population control simply because we follow the Magisterium of the Popes, on which we directly depend.” Okay, let’s accept that. Yet it is also true that Sánchez’s actions have lent political, cultural, and religious support to organizations which push, and push heavily, population control and the systematic killing of the unborn. They now can claim Vatican support for their agendas.

The Archbishop sought these worldly connections to give weight and prominence to his political programs. He ought to at least consider what is obvious to the rest of us: that his actions will foster the very evils he hopes to eliminate.

For years they’ve been telling faithful Catholics that our Church was not about politics, that it was something ‘above’ politics, and that politics was just a matter of ‘prudential judgment’ about which we could faithfully disagree.  That was always a lie, a way to disarm the reasonable objections and efforts to defend the Faith in our world. It ensured Catholics remained impotent while its adversaries destroyed the Church from within and without.

Now they’ve achieved their goal.  The visible Church has become nothing more than a venue for socialist politicking, where hard-eyed grinning Nancy Pelosi’s in purple hurl ridiculous insults at the faithful just for presenting facts along with their helpless pleas for mercy.