{"id":2512,"date":"2015-05-26T15:05:45","date_gmt":"2015-05-26T19:05:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/66.147.242.160\/~stumbli4\/?p=2512"},"modified":"2015-05-26T15:17:07","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T19:17:07","slug":"vatican-to-catholics-dont-like-the-un-dont-buy-global-warming-you-must-be-a-rich-capitalist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/?p=2512","title":{"rendered":"Vatican To Catholics: Don\u2019t Like The UN? Don\u2019t Buy Global Warming? You Must Be A Rich Capitalist!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Apostle<\/a>

Apostle of FrancisChurch<\/p><\/div>\n

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<\/a> and nothing like Christians.<\/p>\n

The Vatican\u00a0has interested itself in global warming, going so far as to stage an invitation-only exhibition<\/a> on the matter, and to release\u00a0through the Pontifical Academies\u00a0of Sciences and Social Sciences the curious document \u201cClimate Change and The Common Good<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0The document\u2019s main author is the Chancellor of the Academies, Archbishop Marcelo S\u00e1nchez Sorondo.<\/p>\n

His Excellency was criticized by many<\/a> for the low-quality, error-laden<\/a>\u00a0science in this document, but he received the most heat for buddying up to abortion and \u201cpopulation control\u201d enthusiasts<\/a>\u00a0like UN boss Ban Ki-moon and economist Jeffrey Sachs.<\/p>\n

Evidently, these critiques stung. The Archbishop returned fire<\/a>, accusing his detractors of acting on the orders of a cabal dedicated to destroying Science \u2014 a charge which found sympathetic ears.<\/a> But he couldn\u2019t 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\u00a0gave it.<\/p>\n

In an interview with Stefano Gennarini<\/a>, S\u00e1nchez shot back with an odd claim he has made many times, that the \u201cclimate 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.\u201d Elsewhere<\/a>, he included prostitution and \u201corgan trafficking\u201d as other results of global warming.<\/p>\n

By any reckoning, this is an impressive list of evils. Yet what\u2019s missing from his Excellency\u2019s statements is any explanation of how<\/em> exactly the slight increase in clement winter afternoons has caused<\/em> abortion, prostitution and other grave human evils to increase.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Did the fraction of a degree uptick in temperature late last century make men more amorous? Perhaps the dearth of hurricanes and tornadoes\u00a0 \u2014 the \u201cclimate crisis\u201d has pushed these way down<\/a>\u00a0 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese are serious matters!\u201d the objection will run. And so they are. But mentioning something serious doesn\u2019t make you a serious person. There must be more than moral dudgeon backing a claim as \u2026 grandiose as S\u00e1nchez\u2019s, namely that global warming causes abortion. There must be evidence. Is there? The answer depends on how reliable global warming theory is.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not exactly.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Many have fallen prey to the unscientific belief that predictions of doom are proof<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

The predictions of doom have been consistent: temperature is promised to\u00a0soar ever upwards. The theory is that small\u00a0boosts in carbon dioxide (compared to the atmosphere\u00a0as a whole), by way of\u00a0feedback 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<\/em>, climate models have predicted rising temperatures, but the reality has been that there is no such increase<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

Let me pose another question. Which is more likely to lead to more abortions:<\/p>\n

(A) Global warming, through a twisting, fanciful chain of causality, which anyway hasn\u2019t even happened yet, or<\/p>\n

(B) The bolstering of the rich, influential, abortion- and contraception-friendly United Nations and radical NGOs, who can now claim\u00a0to enjoy\u00a0\u201cVatican support\u201d?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Can this assessment be repeated often enough?\u00a0 Handing power to the Leftist enemies of the Faith is always wrong and never the business of churchmen.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s predictions<\/a> before scientists wholly backed the theory.<\/p>\n

S\u00e1nchez was asked about this principle: \u201cWhat do you answer to so called \u2018climate skeptics\u2019 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?\u201d<\/p>\n

His response was revealing: \u201cI hope you are not [a skeptic] because then we\u00a0would discover the true reason for these false accusations against us!\u201d<\/p>\n

S\u00e1nchez 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 \u201cincomes derived from oil.\u201d Because, well, that would prove that everything they\u2019re saying is false, wouldn\u2019t it? Thank heavens no scientists who assert that man-made climate change is a crisis<\/em> receive any income for their work, or support from billion-dollar foundations.<\/p>\n

Archbishop S\u00e1nchez is keen on sustainability<\/a>, which many take as a code word for population control. On this issue, he said that his Sustainable Development Goals didn\u2019t \u201ceven mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

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, \u201cSome may even interpret [these terms] as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity.\u201d If there is a polite, ecclesiastical way of saying \u201cbalderdash,\u201d this is the place for it.<\/p>\n

The Archbishop said that we \u201ccan rest assured that the two academies of\u00a0which I am chancellor are against abortion and against population control simply because we follow the Magisterium of the Popes, on which we directly depend.\u201d Okay, let\u2019s accept that. Yet it is also true that S\u00e1nchez\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Now they’ve achieved their goal.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u00a0has interested itself in global warming, going so far as to stage an invitation-only exhibition on the matter, and to release\u00a0through the Pontifical …<\/span> Read More →<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[336,129,337,251,283,250],"class_list":["post-2512","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-archbishop-marcelo-sanchez-sorondo","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-deniers","tag-global-warming","tag-population-control","tag-united-nations"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2512","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2512"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2512\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2533,"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2512\/revisions\/2533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stumblingblock.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}