Check out linked Climate Depot piece by Mark Morano for profiles of each of these hardcore Freedom-Haters: Jeffrey Sachs, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams & Naomi Klein.In the preparation and promotion of its widely touted encyclical, Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home, the Vatican relied on advisors who can only be described as the most extreme elements in the global warming debate. These climate advisors are so far out of the mainstream they even make some of their fellow climate activists cringe. Many of these advisors oppose individual freedom and market economics and stand against traditional family values.The Vatican and Pope Francis did not allow dissent or alternative perspectives to be heard during the creation and promotion of the encyclical. The Vatican only listened to activist voices within the climate movement.Even more startling, many of the Vatican’s key climate advisors have promoted policies directly at odds with Catholic doctrine and beliefs. The proceedings of the Vatican climate workshop included activists like Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs.Pope Francis’ advisors, and the UN climate agenda he is aligning himself with, are strong supporters of development restrictions, contraceptives, population control, and abortion. Despite these strange bedfellows, the encyclical is clear in condemning abortion, contraception, and population control.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
How far up the chain does this rot go?
Who had the final say on Pope Francis's completely one-sided and ultra-radical panel of climate advisors?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a show, il Papa wows the crowds. I did not realize so many are so desparately searchig for meaning and healing or is this just the current rage for something to get excited about? Liberals, you know, often have to have something exciting to raise their voices over. I see him kissing babies and even touching the sick but I see no miracles like those allegedly performed by his main predecessor. Power is not going to listen to him anyhow. Your linked article is scary because so many apparently still swallow the mainline to God thing they think the Pope has going for Him. It should be mentioned, however, that the Catholic church has made a concerted effort to be scientific and logical in its "godly" thinking.
ReplyDeleteNow that I'm a regular at a Protestant church, I'm starting to once again take an outsider's look at the concept of papacy. I understand that the idea is that there would be an unbroken chain of Vicars of Christ traceable back to the fist, who personally knew Jesus ("On this rock . . .") but I think it's safe to say that there have been interruptions caused by good old human folly, including times of multiple popes and even married popes.
ReplyDeleteYes, the failed Jesuit and Pulitzer Prize Winner Garry Wills has taken us back down that road in Papal Sins. Read more at https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/11/reviews/000611.11rortyt.html
ReplyDeletehis central point: ''The pope alone, we are now asked to accept, is competent to tell Christian people how to live. . . . The Holy Spirit now speaks to only one person on earth, the omnicompetent head of the church, a church that is all head and no limbs. If that were so, then the body of Christ would be shamefully reduced.'' But he has many other examples of dishonesty: tortured interpretations of Scripture, blatant distortions of ecclesiastical history, endless hypocritical whining and just plain lies. He is startlingly frank on issues that most Catholic writers avoid, as when he writes, ''In fact, the admission of married men and women to the priesthood -- which is bound to come anyway -- may well come for the wrong reason, not because women and the community deserve this, but because of panic at the perception that the priesthood is becoming predominantly gay.'' He is equally blunt about the present pope, whom he describes in the same sort of terms Acton used of Pius IX: ''The rest of the church must live in structures of deceit because this one man is true to his intensely personal vision.'' Ibid
ReplyDelete