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.

 

 

 

 

 

united nations

Is this a new Catholic Church? Wait, I don’t see kneelers.

At ‘Blog for Dallas Area Catholics’ Tantumblogo has no illusions about the origins and ends of the Global Warming offense.

Some of the very, very first laws the Bolsheviks put into effect upon taking power in the former Imperial Russia were laws not just allowing, but encouraging divorce, contraception, and abortion.  Why in heavens would that be one of their earliest moves?  What could they possibly have to gain from diabolical efforts?  Control.

The left, most admittedly in its pure and distilled form of communism, but in all its forms, seeks to control people on a level never dreamed of by the most benighted despots of the past.  They seek not just control over  your political activities, or your economic life, or of your social involvements, but all these things plus much more besides.  They seek to control your inner thoughts and your relationship with God.  The left, as I have argued many times in the past, is ultimately at war with the Christian God and has been for hundreds of years.

How is religion most intimately and effectively communicated from one generation to the next?  The family.  How can the left ever pry us stubborn God-botherers away from our magic talks with God unless they destroy the family and stand up the state in its stead?  And how can one destroy the family, anyway?  Well……turning sex into a competitive sport and loosing all the checks and balances God provided on human reproductive behavior was, and remains, a great place to start.  So you legalize divorce, fornication, contraception, and especially baby murder, and go from there.  As we have seen in this country, a few decades of such legalization will lead society to the precipice of self-destruction.  And even after the regime that foisted such evils on the people goes away, the evils remain for decades after.  Witness Russia today, with still one of the world’s highest abortion rates, and general death-wishing nihilism driving incredibly high rates of alcoholism and drug addiction, producing one of the lowest life expectancies for men of any largely developed nation.

Communism is nothing if not relentless.  They tried the direct method of competition with the more capitalist West and failed.  So now they are trying manifold other, less obvious but more insidious methods, like cultural marxism and environmentalism.  But these replacements are no different from their predecessor, and contain all the same assumptions and desires that the old Soviet state did – total control over the lives and thoughts of everyone on earth, the destruction of the family, the “death” of God.  Cultural marxism and environmentalism are of course as tied up in the sexular pagan death cult as the most fire-breathing Bolshevist of Stalin’s days.

Which brings me to the main point – this recent highly publicized and very important “climate conference” or “conference on sustainable development” at the Vatican.  Yes there have been highly unfortunate flirtations with the left wing socialists at the UN and in the environmental movement by the Vatican before, but never with such official approbation, and never with so much influence on official papal documents of doctrinal import. I say influence, because the Vatican itself widely reported that the meeting between Pope Francis and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as well as the entirely one-sided conferences organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, were oriented towards providing input for the upcoming papal encyclical on “climate change” and sustainable development.  As I noted in the link above, the conferences featured some of the most prominent pro-aborts and population control zealots in the world today.  That pro-abort maximalists like Jeffrey Sachs (abortion on demand at public expense and without apology) were given a platform to speak – even if “only” on a subject intimately related to their population control obsessions, “climate change” and sustainable development – is hugely scandalous in its own rite.  But to openly tie this platform with the upcoming encyclical is completely unprecedented.

You can read the rest here.

This ugly unity between the worldwide Left and the NewChurch, emerging at Benedict’s abdication, and clear since Francis walked out on the balcony; is impossible to ignore.  It is not the place of the Christ’s Bride to collaborate with these actors and enable their murderous worldy goals and frauds.  That is simply not Catholic.  It’s the opposite.

What do we do with this encyclical then?  What will it mean for our Church?

 

 

Down for the Unholy Cause

Down for the Unholy Cause

At Breitbart James Delingpole reports:

Papal heavies shut down an awkward question at a Vatican press conference today when a journalist asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon his views on climate sceptics.

Marc Morano, covering the Vatican climate conference for Climate Depot, asked Ban Ki-Moon whether he had a message for the Heartland Institute delegation of scientists who have flown to Rome to urge the Pope to reconsider his ill-advised position climate change.

But before he could finish the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while a security guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear “You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.”

Not a peep of a smidgen of a question about science permitted during this ‘catholic’ event, only about what to do about the climate Armageddon.

Morano, together with Christopher Monckton (one of the Heartland delegation) and your correspondent, only narrowly made it into the carefully stage-managed conference where – as known climate sceptics – they were apparently not welcome.

“Ah. So you made it in here?” said a somewhat surprised looking member of the Vatican press team to Morano, when he realised that he had bypassed the Vatican’s security and infiltrated the press pack who had come to cover the conference.

As luck would have it, a heaven-sent shower of torrential rain had created such chaos that security wasn’t as tight as it might have been.

God intervened to thwart the Catholic Church leaders’ infamous plans?  I thought they were on His side?

However, the three sceptics (Morano, Monckton, Delingpole) were watched very carefully throughout the proceedings lest they attempt to ruffle the feathers of key speakers Ban Ki-Moon, left-wing economist Jeffrey Sachs and Cardinal Turkson, the Ghanaian priest who has been co-ordinating the Vatican’s position on “climate change.”

In the end, Secretary-General Ban did answer a similar question, albeit one expressed more delicately by a journalist from the Catholic media, when he was asked what his views were on those members of the Catholic community who had reservations about the Pope’s position on climate change.

Perhaps this was a response to Ban’s rather bold and very moot declaration that “Religion and science are united on the need for action on climate.”

Isn’t the outrageously-treated Heartland Institute comprised mainly of scientists, and acting on their behalf?

“I don’t think faith leaders should be scientists,” said Ban, in reply to the question. “I’m not a scientist. What I want is their moral authority. Business leaders and all civil society is on board [with the mission to combat climate change]. Now we want faith leaders. Then we can make it happen.”

I’m not a scientist.  ‘Faith leaders aren’t scientists.  Only scientists are scientists and they ALREADY KNOW THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING!

Now it is up to us to ACT.  WE MUST HAVE FAITH LEADERS. THEN WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE POPE FOLLOWS US. NOW YOU MUST FOLLOW HIM!

Why is it that these Hitlerian expressions must be as insane as they are brutal?  Why do modern societies always seem to crash in the wake of these pitiful assertions and dogmas?  We are the master race, destined to rule the earth!

Global Warming is false from every angle.  It doesn’t exist, and even if it did it would still have nothing to do with all the things they blame upon it, and nothing they propose doing will ever impact it.  It’s a perfect nothing, except for the fact that every living mouth on the planet may only speak of it as true.

Even Christians.