“I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.”

There is grave evil about. The Vatican is cooperating with the very authors of the population control agenda. When questioned, they bristle at the insolence of devout pro-life, pro-family Catholics questioning this madness, as if these devout Catholics were simply shills for the oil industry!

How can one be silent? How can one not speak out against this demonic activity?!?

How in good conscience can one be complicit in silencing the opposition to this evil?

Vatican Prelate Responds to Critics of Climate Conference, Blames Tea Party and Oil Business
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | May 18, 2015

Following last month’s appearance of Jeffrey Sachs and Ban Ki-moon at a Vatican conference on climate change several catholic intellectuals as well as pro-life news sources were puzzled about the Vatican giving a platform to the world’s foremost proponents of abortion and population control. I thought it could be useful to know what the organizers of the conference thought of the concerns so I reached out to them.

Below are the replies of Archishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancelor of the Ponitifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences, which hosted the “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity” conference at the Vatican last month. Sánchez Sorondo initially apologized for the late reply, which resulted in me writing that the prelate had not replied to my enquiry last week, and then responded to my query at some length. The original questions and replies were in Italian.

Q. Were you aware before your collaboration with Sachs at the Vatican of his public position on abortion in the book “Commonwealth”, where he says abortion is a “low-cost” and “low-risk” intervention to reduce fertility in the event that contraceptives fail?

Sánchez Sorondo (S.S.) I’ve just come back from Argentina, where I attended a conference to combat new forms of slavery, like human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and organ trafficking, which I consider, together with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, to be a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, there is not only the drama of abortion, but there are also all these other dramas, in which you should also be interested, because they are closely related. 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.

Q. Several Catholic intellectuals and media sources criticized your decision to collaborate with Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs on climate change, because of their positions on abortion and population control. Do you have any reply to these concerns?

S.S. The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us, but not my superiors, who instead authorized me, and several of them participated.

Q. Undoubtedly, you discussed Ban Ki-moon’s and Jeffrey Sachs’ position on abortion and population control in the lead up to the conference. How were any questions resolved?

S.S. Yes. We had these discussions, and as you can see, the draft SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. The interpretation and application of these depends on governments. Some may even interpret it as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity. Instead of attacking us, why not enter into dialogue with these “demons” to maybe make the formulation better, like we did on the issues of social inclusion and new forms of slavery?

Q. Critics of this collaboration lament how Catholics and non-Catholics alike may be confused about participating, even remotely, in the grave moral errors that Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs promote. At the same time, Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs have derived great benefit from their participation, confirmed in the enthusiastic media coverage of the conference, which may in turn also raise a lot of interest for Pope Francis’ new encyclical on the environment.

S.S. We are happy that Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs have accepted the theory on climate that the Academy has maintained for thirty years, namely, that human activity based on fossil fuels determines climate. The members of the Academy have defined this “anthropic climate” or “anthropocene,” chief among them being Nobel Prize winners Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina. You should also be happy, because the consequences of climate change fall especially on the poor, and this also puts them in situations where they then accept abortion. Moreover, we are happy that Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs have accepted to modify the proposals on social inclusion by adding new forms of slavery such as human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and organ trafficking, which were not even present in the last drafts. You should be happy about this too, because if there is anything that threatens the family, of which you call your self a supporter, it is prostitution, which Pope benedict called an absolute evil precisely because it destroys the cell of social order.

Q. The Declaration on climate change that was released after the conference unequivocally assigns responsibility for climate change to human activity. Is this a position that is shared by pope Francis?

S.S. This I do not know. But I suppose yes, because he would not write an encyclical just to say that man is responsible for the Earth but that everything is fine! Perhaps, you believe, like those who live off oil, that everything is fine? The Academy says otherwise, as do all the rest of scientific academies in the world. Only a few scientists paid by lobby groups opine differently.

Q. 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?

S.S. To the skeptics (and I hope you are not one of them, because then we would discover the true reason for these false accusations against us!) we respond that they should read our documents from recent years, which are freely accessible to all on the website www.pas.va, These follow faith and reason, as the Church has always done, at least since St. Thomas Aquinas, who himself follows Saint Paul and Saint John, as Fides et Ratio shows. In this case, not only philosophical reason but scientific reason. That is why the Popes have maintained the Academy for Science for 400 years.

I have no qualms about you publishing these replies, to contest what you said I did not respond. If I was not able to respond it is because I a have a lot of work and I’ve had to reply to several others like yourself, who accuse us of things that are not true. You 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. I hope that you too will follow this teaching, when it speaks of the gravity of the economic situation, which is all geared towards profit, and when it will speak of the gravity of human responsibility for changes in the climate, as I hope the next encyclical will say.​

 

There have been a few posts on this last week:

http://motheofgod.com/threads/a-new-forum-on-pope-francis.4570/page-98#post-86429
Pope’s top adviser blasts US climate skeptics
http://motheofgod.com/threads/a-new-forum-on-pope-francis.4570/page-98#post-86445
Keeping a Cool Head on Pope Francis’ Environment Encyclical (7269) - COMMENTARY
http://motheofgod.com/threads/a-new-forum-on-pope-francis.4570/page-98#post-86597
Vatican press office denies rumor that Pope's encyclical on environment has been postponed

My input was as follows:

And also IJOP:

And my response:

 

I think we all agree the Storm is upon us . We all agree we are in the time of Diabolical Disorientation. We all agree that a Chastisement is imminent .We all agree that we can see Bishop opposing Bishop. We can all see Christians being butchered around the World. We can all see that Doctrine is being challenged at the highest level.
We are all confused .

Why is Pope Francis writing an Encyclical on climate change? I couldnt care less about the bloody climate.

Peter , feed thy Sheep !

 

There is an answer to the storm - Jesus Christ!

Only God can save the Ship in the Storm. Christ is the answer.

Luke 8
But as they were sailing along He fell asleep; and a fierce gale of wind descended on the lake, and they began to be swamped and to be in danger. They came to Jesus and woke Him up, saying, "Master, Master, we are perishing!" And He got up and rebuked the wind and the surging waves, and they stopped, and it became calm. And He said to them, "Where is your faith?" They were fearful and amazed, saying to one another, "Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?

Psalm 107:29
He stilled the storm to a whisper; the waves of the sea were hushed

Christians need to stop looking at the waves and turn to Christ who alone can save us.

 

Oh dear. Brian is at it again... But I have to say that I am a sceptic on a lot of the climate change talk so await with interest what Pope Francis will have to say in his encyclical. The following article seems to me well balanced and open:


An encyclical on the environment might prove to be prophetic, but it might also be a hostage to fortune

The Observer recently ran a report that the Pope is contemplating an encyclical on the environment, or, more specifically, on climate change, and that this will be published in March. You can read the reporthere.

It is interesting to see that talk of a Papal encyclical can still be front page news in a secular newspaper. But what is really interesting is the final comment which comes from an American evangelical, Calvin Beisner, for whose plain speaking we should be grateful:

“The Pope should back off. The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US.”

Mr Beisner has got a good point. Let me try and explain.

If we go back to the last Papal encyclical that made the front pages, Humanae Vitae, and which stirred up a storm inside the Catholic Church as well, the only (and I really do mean the only) cogent criticism of the letter’s teaching was made by Fr Charles Curran and others, who said that the letter’s understanding of Natural Law was flawed, or more exactly, the model of Natural Law that Pope Paul was using was out of date and did not reflect current Catholic thinking. Ergo, from this it followed that, according to Curran and others, the encyclical was wrong to insist that every act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of human life. The problem, as they saw it, was not in the teaching itself, but in the teaching’s faulty presuppositions.

Now, I do not agree with Fr Charles Curran on Humanae Vitae, but his logic commands respect, and if we consider an encyclical on the environment, and remember what Mr Beisner has to say, the risks it any such encyclical runs should be apparent.

The ethical principles are not in doubt. It is wrong, for example, to destroy nature without a proportionate reason. Everyone knows that. What constitutes proportionate reason is something that ethicists and scientists need to work out between them. If, for example one is to build a dam, that is certainly an interference in nature and a destruction of a natural environment – but is it worth it? Will the dam bring some proportionate benefit? That in itself is hard to determine. When I was schoolboy we did projects on the Aswan High Dam, which was seen as a towering human achievement back in the seventies. But would it ever have got built today? Our understanding of the usefulness or otherwise of dams has changed, and will continue to do so over time. Look at the Three Gorges Damin China, a project that has been damned by virtually everyone. I suspect that forty years ago the consensus would have been very different.

The simple fact of the matter is that our understanding of anything in this world is historical. When I was a child we were all heading towards a new Ice Age; now I am grown up, we are all heading in the opposite direction. Our ethical principles, in so far as they are abstract, do not change with time, but the clear danger is that our moral pronouncements on something like climate change will look foolish or out of date with the passage of a few decades. So it has proved in the case of usury: past condemnations relied on a false model for understanding money. It was the same in the case of slavery: past condoning of slavery relied on a very faulty model of human rights. In the case of climate change: do we really understand what we are dealing with here? Remember the biofuels idea? Biofuels were meant to be part of the solution. Now they are seen as just another bad idea.

Given the difficulty with the subject, one might think that I am advocating silence on the issue. Sometimes, no doubt, silence is best, but for the Church to fall silent on social issues completely would be nothing short of catastrophic, quite apart from being a shirking of moral responsibility. The environment is a “problem” and it must be confronted. We cannot put it in a box marked “too difficult”. But what exactly can we say, and what ought we to say? Here are some suggestions.

First of all, in keeping with tradition, the Church needs to remind everyone of the folly and sinfulness of conspicuous over-consumption. Our environmental problems are aggravated by over-eating, over-heating, over-air-conditioning, and driving gas-guzzling vehicles, as well as throwing away tons of usable stuff which we do not want, both clothes and food and children’s toys. None of this in keeping with traditional Christian humility and frugality. People need to stop showing off, particularly in a world where so many get by (if at all) on so little.

Secondly, the Pope (or any other bishop of the Church) would surely be on solid ground if he were to condemn the relentless pursuit of ugliness in the modern world, and promote a proper Christian and human aesthetic. Much modern development is hideous beyond belief, and a scar on the face of the planet. This sort of environmental impact is to be deplored, whereas the impact made by some of the great human constructions, of the past, but also some contemporary ones, is quite the opposite. We must enhance the world, not ruin it.

Thirdly, the Pope should certainly praise the work of conservation, which has saved many natural beauties for future generations, as well as many of the beauties of the built environment. One ought to praise the work of conservation, something that the Church itself has long been committed to through its museums, libraries and archeological projects, while not adhering to the motivation or beliefs of many conservators, which are quite a different matter. Conservation is a God-given duty, as the book of Genesis implies (see Genesis 2:15). The Pope might also add that there is more to conservation than talk. It requires deeds as well as words, and will involve real sacrifices.

But most of this has been said before now in numerous Church documents, and most of this is pure common sense. As Mr Beisner’s comments imply, there is no real controversy about the ethics. So, do we really need an encyclical on this matter? One that took up a strong position on the causes of climate change might prove to be prophetic, but it might also be a hostage to fortune.

Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith


http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...ly-need-a-papal-encyclical-on-climate-change/

 

I'd like to think Pope Francis has indeed a very good reason for writing an Encyclical on climate change. You ask why, Mac. The Encyclical will give us the answer. The writing's on the wall. I'm not confused. Teaching and Truth are clear to me. As ever, we will not concur on this. I trust Pope Francis.

 

“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men—when we can do it—is no less a sin than to encourage them."
- Pope Felix III

 

Joe I agree. you know also these demonic forces at work change the meaning of words so often.global warming is now climate change.pro abortion is now freedom of choice...etc now they have placed under climate change, population control.The 4 prophetic statements of Blessed Pope Paul VI Humane Vitae have come true. the 4th is, goverments will impose mandates to regulate birth and so the UN places this task under climate change...so deceptive! This encyclical I believe will shout out pro life, pro family pro feed the poor and this will change the climate....
pray pray pray

 

I suspect that Martin Luther would have agreed with every syllable of that quote.

 

Perhaps the same way Jesus, did when he walked amongst sinners humbly trying to change hearts. One must try to build bridges not barriers.

I admit I do not know the hearts and intentions of many or the few, but struggle to better my own.

Such affairs while seemingly poor in judgement by your 'admission' are for the Holy Spirit to engage; there were one can make a difference. And here in prayer. Thoughts are rather subjective without clarity.

As point of reference: I might also point out that even in Sodom and Gomorrah two angels mingled with the enemy for the better good.

Here In your writing I do not see any due respect for the church that bore witness to Christ for the last two thousand millennia. Yes your intentions may be admirable, but if they are not bearing any fruits for the Church then they are void of reasonably explanation. i.e. should you point out consistently - more then less encouraging posts: one can not help but feel depressed and dejected.

If a member of the Catholic Church in high rising comes out and say unequivocally and the pope agrees in support of abortion then you have my full attention, support, but until then? it is mere conjecture and damaging to the Catholic Church that gave you life in the body of Christ.

Who here believes in love thy neighbour? If you are quick to say 'of course' '..yes!' Then by your own logic it should inescapably follow naturally and more so respectful to think about others first and oneself's opinions must be in -great caution- as there are many things not in your grasp of understanding, but for the good council of the Catholic Church to investigate: lead by the Holy Spirit. Less idol meddling.

There are many souls to consider here.. many! Not one or a handful. And you may say 'but of course' 'I know this' But.

If it is only a passing thought savoured yesterday; how can one sustain growth; spiritually in abundance therein, herein? and seed good fruit for many a heart to savour and rejoice in today. Be careful in dishing out thoughts when you don't know the sweetness or bitterness of other hearts and minds lest you crush the good fruit; suppress them.

The greatest deeds done without love are meaningless. God lends His ears and eyes to those who do likewise.

God bless!

.

 

Wow, you just attributed the wise and prudent sentiments/advice of a canonized Saint to a scoundrel and a heretic.

And people "like" your post?

What kind of "spirit" is at work here?

 

Yes, and it also makes the two points that I have been trying to make:

1) To assume that all who are skeptical of the science behind the proposed human causes of "climate change" are only driven by money (and thus represent a failure of stewardship over the creation) is a complete misunderstanding of the truth.
2) To fail to recognize that "the business of climate change" itself may very well represent a greater danger of being usurped by the god of mammon than "the business of opposing climate change legislation", for the sake of profit, would also be a misunderstanding of the truth.

 

Brian,
since I came to this MOG forum a few months ago. you have predicted how Pope Francis will decide The Synod and what the
New Encyclical on the environment will mean. without either one being finalized.
You also twist " Who am I to Judge "
To me davids post is spot on...(imho)

so you are correct in asking?

What kind of "spirit" is at work here?

I wish you would read more of the Popes homilies and public statements and less commentary on what people think he says.

 

I understand your disposition, and don't necessarily disagree with it. You have been consistent.

However, in this case I believe Brian is not speaking of Pope Francis, but rather other Vatican representatives who are making public pronouncements regarding climate change, which he cited above. I think it is fair to address them (these public pronouncements by others) directly, without being accused of bashing the Pope.

You may have your ire up toward Brian personally, based on past posts directed at the Pope himself, if he has made any, though I have not paid much attention to the banter, or the facts between apparent factions here on MOG. I usually choose not to engage in attacking the Pope, or others on the forum, but I do feel strongly about the apparent message being sent to the public, so far, regarding climate change and the church soon taking an official position on the secular matters.

 

I look forard to reading what Pope Francis has to say. Personal I think human cause global warming due to CO2 is 99.99% pure BS. Funny how you hear all about CO2 but the gulf oil spill and Fukashima disaster, which actually do threaten us are silenced. No money in these, only expenses. Climate change is all about money and control. As Jon said there is vastly more money syphoned into goverments with the "climate change" fear. Our climate tax hasn't happened in Canada yet but it is close. Yes, let's give more to politicians so they can save the planet, LOL Last I checked Photosynthesis was a vital process requiring CO2.
Now if we are so against CO2, lets get the goverments to ban volcano eruptions and decomposing vegitation, then get them to stop the oceans from releasing CO2

If you look at the international companies/banks/organizations that use various means to remove the sovereignty of nations this is just another element to do so. Once our governments fully submit (so willingly) to international banks for our finances, the world health organization for all health related issues, vaccines and drugs, major food corporations regulating our food supply(even preventing growing your own), and IPCC CO2 mandates to "save the earth" we are no longer free. These will all cumulate into rise of the anti-christ that will have control over most everyone. But!!....THANK GOD we have been so blessed as to understand that our lives belong to Him not to the rulers of the world. We shouldn't get too caught up in what we can't control.

 

very concise! you point out all of the reasons to be wise, not ignorant, about these forces at work.....

 

As this little thread has got a bit heated, it seems a good idea to post this short extract from Pope Francis' homily in Santa Marta this morning:

Jesus prays "for the unity of His people, for the Church." But Jesus knows, Pope Francis says, that “the spirit of the world" is "a spirit of division, of war, of envy, jealousy, even in families, even in religious families, even in dioceses, even in the Church as a whole: it is the great temptation." One that leads, the Pope says, to gossiping, to labelling, to pigeonholing people. All attitudes and behavior, the Pope stresses, that we are called to refrain from:

"We must be one, just one being, as Jesus and the Father are one. This is precisely the challenge for all of us Christians: to not give way to division among us; to not let the spirit of division, the father of lies, come between us. Continuously seek unity. Everyone is different in his own way, but [we must] try to live in unity. Has Jesus forgiven you? He forgives everyone. Jesus prays that we are one, one being. And the Church has great need of this prayer of unity. "

 

Jon,
Brian and others ... thru various threads on MOG have posted " alleged secret masonic documents " that the Church is run by masons.
Source material from groups who proclaim we have not had a valid pope since Pope Pius XII and anything the Church does and says is suspect.
He posted a video news link on this same subject a few weeks back. from a newspaper whose "motto" is in your face, and face meaning the Holy Father. Was originally directed to then Pope St John Paul II The Great and continued with Benedict and now Francis.

So to me, its a stagger step, head fake ,cut right and run.... another of Brians continued assaults on our Holy Father Francis/Church

 

To shame dissenters makes me very uneasy. God gave us free will to make good decisions for our lives. Shaming people who question is stifling the necessary discussion so people can make decisions. Lately one sister has made a request on me that wasn't healthy for her. Trying to be nice, I accommodated her request. Later another sister called to tell me some crucial information that if I had known, I would not have accommodated my sister's request. Communication is not always gossip and divisive, it can critically important for the well being of others.

 

This is just another attack on Brian. Try to stick to the issue of the thread.