Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Breitbart reports that Pope Francis’ Christmas address, which traditionally touches on the gravest issues facing the world, completely omitted mention of the environment and climate change.
In the Pope’s annual Christmas message to the world that traditionally highlights the gravest problems facing humanity, Francis repeatedly underscored the evils of terrorism, especially in areas dominated by the Islamic State, and completely skipped over environmental concerns that have often figured prominently in his discourses.
This year’s papal message delivered at noon on Christmas day, called “urbi et orbi”—to the city (of Rome) and to the world—focused on the people hardest hit by wars and terrorism, in particular the Middle East.
Precisely “where the incarnate Son of God came into the world,” Francis said, “tensions and violence persist, and peace remains a gift to be implored and built.”
In his prayer for peace, Pope Francis explicitly referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ongoing war in Syria, and the atrocities wrought by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and sub-Saharan Africa.
…
Conspicuous by its absence was any reference to climate change or environmental concerns, despite the fact that less than a month ago the Pope said that humanity was “on the brink of suicide” because of global warming and that the COP21 climate meetings in Paris might be the last chance for mankind to avert environmental destruction.
…
Obviously its a little early to draw any conclusions – one data point doesn’t make a trend. But as WUWT recently reported, the climate issue continues to divide the Catholic Church at the highest levels. We can but hope that Pope Francis has indeed decided to listen to other points of view.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No. He likely is not backing away. Terrorism is a Christmas topic. Climate Change is OLD Christmas topic ..Jan 6th. Easy Mistake Eric.
Maybe someone gave him the heads-up, that it was God who created the world and everything in it for us to use, and it’s kind of sacrilegious for the Pope to be questioning God’s work, especially as climate change isn’t mentioned anywhere in The Book of Revelation.
The Pope by definition of his office deals in matters of the human spirit, as revealed through what is widely known to be teachings of allegory and myth. While some may look to him for moral guidance, I can’t imagine anyone literate looks to him much for answers to worldly problems.
It’s a club.
Have you ever been to a papal gathering ?
Try it. It’s much like the recent paris summit. Lots of intermingling where common interest in the church breeds business relationships. Church member take care of other church members.
Not saying it is right or wrong. Just saying it’s more than spiritual needs met.
@James Baldwin Bradley. Good point. The pope obviously accepts that there is a divine spirit we call God that created the Earth. He should wonder then if it really makes sense for God to have carbon dioxide play dual, contradictory roles on the planet….one good and beneficial and other supposedly dangerous, dramatic and climate-changing. Does he have a explanation for this?
But then of course there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Exposure to too much H20 can be deadly and destructive despite its necessity on the planet. Its called flooding. But the roles that water and CO2 play on the planet are not exactly the same.
If the pope believes that God intended for CO2 to have this dual role (one good and one bad) on the planet, then he can perhaps explain God’s thinking in doing so. Otherwise, as you suggest James, it would indeed seem a bit sacrilegious for the pope to treat CO2 as a pollutant.
Nooo! CO2 is the work of the devil . The fires of hell do not run on renewables you know, they are burning “dirty” fosil fuels like coal down there.
Well, except in climatology of course, where you don’t need any data at all to claim a trend.
In fact, one encyclical and one Christmas message: that makes two data points and you certainly can make a trend with two data points. You can then extrapolate the ‘trend’ into the future, typically about 5 to 10 times the time interval between the two data points and claim 95% confidence in your result, based upon “expert opinion”
So based upon the usual IPCC procedures and current trends, I would expect the Pope to be a full scale heretic climate deenyer by this time next year.
This pope has betrayed every value a member of the catholic church would hold dear. #Judas
A wolf in sheep’ clothing ?
No. Francis the talking mule.
Haven’t you noticed? Inability to breed and lots of braying in church.
Do keep up Eric. The climate crisis problem was already solved this month. Did you miss the Paris back-slapping marathon? The climate nitwits have decreed that we will not get a temperature increase of 2 degrees. What’s not to like?
Surely not possible Phil, an actual solution to the “crisis” would rule out the possibility of future climate conferences in exotic holiday destinations… 🙂
Not so my friend. Checking on the progress of the dramatic changes in the Keeling Curve will require intense efforts in such locations. Ten years probably. Plenty of time to sip Champagne and find the next crisis. Minimum Tooth Fairy donations ??
…. think of the children.
My vote for “solution” goes to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/22/volcanoes-and-ozone-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/ . A seriously complete theory, readily verified. Lots of long-term data.
And yet the RCC continues to thrive w 1B member. Perhaps there are many lessons to be learned concerning what sustains a mass movement.
Unlike many politicians, the Vatican, and especially this pope, is not not big on backpedaling or retractions, especially when it comes to ENCYCLICALS! It’s an encyclical, not an opinion piece in the NY Times. Sorry to disappoint, but you were wondering this back in May of this year when you published a similar piece of wishful thinking. if you’ve bothered to have read the encyclical: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html, Francis’ position is quite clear and, I would suggest, the encyclical had much to do with the spirit and substance of the recently concluded climate talks in Paris.
?
I’m not suggesting a retraction, more a slim possibility of a change, a focus on other issues. Still, very early days.
A bit like that Billy Joel song, “she never gives out and she never gives in she just changes her mind”.
It would be a bit nice if “our” pope could change his mind when he’s obviously wrong, but frankly, I don’t think he has that much integrity.
I don’t want to be in the camp of anyone who considers any man infallible . And I don’t want them in my camp either. The fallibility of the man and the office is once again demonstrated by the popes ignorant position on climate. ( Politically incorrect on purpose and by nature…that’s me.)
There is no claim to infallibility here. The pope is not speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals in this context. The Catholic Church has a long history of scientific education, research and achievement and quality education in general. That Francis spoke on this, so much so that he published an encyclical letter, is no surprise given the current state of the climate and the church’s historically strong contributions to science. Your quote: “The fallibility of the man and the office is once again demonstrated by the popes ignorant position on climate” presupposes a standpoint of correctness; but what authority do you arrogate that position to yourself, that you (and most of the readers and posters on this blog) know better than the vast majority of the world’s scientists, including the Vatican’s.
After three times adamantly declaring an untruth, even Peter was given the opportunity by Jesus to repent three times. We can yet pray that Pope Francis will listen to his Lord and Creator and turn back to focus again on “Feed my lambs” and “Feed my sheep”. John 21:15-18, and on “the Truth”. John 14:16
Francis’ concern for the world as a whole (feed my lambs and feed my sheep) is *the* principal reason for publication of his encyclical letter “LAUDATO SI”. My points were 1) that the Vatican and this pope, in particular, doesn’t do anything with haste and I’m sure there was much thought given to scope, breadth and substance of the reactions, so I strongly doubt any change in the language and substance of LAUDATO SI will be forthcoming; to my second point, Francis’ perceives (correctly) that his lambs and sheep are in dire peril and is exhorting those who can help and those who are responsible to act accordingly. I, for one, laud him for taking such a stand and would suggest that other heads of state (he is the Vatican’s head of state) follow his example and act accordingly.
T. Madigan
“For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers.” Proverbs 11:14
I see someone who listened to a politically motivated atheist but refused to listen to other scientists, including Christians, upholding the scientific method. Test the spirits.
Sad. He will have to answer to his Lord.
It remains to be seen. Many Catholics are not pleased that, what was once considered to be an ”act of God” is being substituted with the concept that man’s influence is overpowering. They see it as a subtle undermining of the existence of the almighty and all powerful God they hold with such reverence and faith. The two concepts simply aren’t compatible.
Eamon.
Maybe his Boss had a word with him.
IOW, he talked about what he should be talking about. For once.
A picture is worth a thousand words. http://www.toonpool.com/user/1292/files/pope_francis_and_the_hardliners_2087045.jpg
Backwards, forwards, sideways- who could tell? This Pope is about as mobile as Alexander VI, and, if you count the message ringing down through the ages, a little less influential.
He is a tool who has been used by the Communists.
I’ll put it another way, the Vatican should be very embarrassed at having been used as “useful fools” by the Communists.
I certainly hope he is. Both the last pope and the current pope have lost loyal Catholics by their actions. The last pope worked against basic Christian and Catholic values. The current pope’s embarkation on warmism (paganism) and socialism (Christ was a capitalist) runs contrary to Christianity and Catholicism.
I don’t recall reading that Jesus was a capitalist. It seems to me the Bible writings describe him as a communist. However, that’s a reasonable point of view for a prophet delivering a message, and a Pope isn’t Jesus, it’s a church official, and ought to consider the horrible human rights abuses and poverty caused by communists.
Jesus was very much a capitalist :-
1) the Parable of the Talents – https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=NIV .
2) Christianity believes in the individual, in individual responsibility, in individuals developing their moral character, in individuals caring directly. Socialism believes in outsourcing caring to the state, and it believes in group think.
Christianity does have a strong emphasis on community but I don’t recall Christ actually pushing that although it might be gain-able from the canonical gospels.
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 – https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+3%3A10&version=ESV
To mention one aspect of early Christian teaching — Through their lives man and women will do different forms of work. This has the implication of “bettering oneself” or finding a more satisfying work to do. Work was to increase a person’s well being (that includes a person’s wealth). The belief was that all, by working to better themselves, served to better all around them. In other words an honest, forthright, hardworking person betters his community. That is Capitalism.
The love of gold was condemned with the admonishment that the love of gold can never be satisfied by gold. The love of gold was a continual state of want never to be sated. The love of gold was bad for whoever lusted after it and bad for the community.
Acquiring wealth through one’s work was a just reward, whether you were a shepherd or a merchant prince. (This is on display in the Book Of Job.) There is nothing wrong with being rich.
So early Christians believed in basic Capitalism.
Eugene WR Gallun
I should also have mentioned that taking wealth from one group and moving it to another place to benefit a different group is roundly condemned. That is what socialism does. This basic principle of socialism is condemned in the earliest Christian writings.
Eugene WR Gallun
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
The message was one of individual responsibility and relationship with people and God. No excuses, but much capacity for forgiveness.
Matthew 19:24 (KJV)
~And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.~
(as I understand the matter)
It was typical in the case of a fortified/walled city or town, that the main gate would be closed at night, leaving only what was called the “needle gate” for those arriving later to enter, It was a narrow passage that could be guarded by one or two men, till more could be roused to the defense. If someone wished to bring a pack animal in at night, it would have to be unloaded, and in the case of a camel, it would have to crawl on it’s knees to pass through the needle gate.
The verse is not condemning the rich, but warning of the difficulty they would have if they fell into the “love” of their riches, and their puny “status” among men, which could easily cause them to be too prideful to submit to Him, as all must willingly do, to enter His Kingdom through “the narrow gate”.
(23) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(24) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(25) When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
(26) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
JK
Thanks for the needle gate share.
Never knew that …
Buster Brown
By the way, I am an atheist who does Old Testament Hebrew translation (when I am in the mood and I haven’t been in the mood for the last couple years). I try to stay away from this New Testament stuff, but what the hell.
I said, “There is nothing wrong with being rich”
You replied, “Matthew 19:24” — which reads (King James) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Said by Jesus)
Note that in Matthew 20:29 Jesus also says — “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my names’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” This seems to clearly state that one of the rewards in heaven is wealth (lands and houses) So is it only OK to be wealthy in heaven but not on earth?
In Matthew 19:21 Jesus says — “if thou wilt be perfect –” I think most readers miss the point — which is that no one is perfect. Jesus locates this young man’s imperfection and puts it on display. (Actually wealth is really a stand in for concern with worldly things.) In Matthew 19:25 those listening to Jesus are amazed saying, “Who then can be saved?” and Jesus replies, Matthew 19:26 — “With men this is impossible but with God all things are possible.” The point of this is that human being are of flesh and blood and live worldly lives — they can’t avoid doing so. Therefore all are “lost” and can only be saved through God’s grace. Those who listen to Jesus have their own concerns about their personal wealth which they are unwilling to give up. They also have wives and children that they won’t give up to follow Jesus. Therefore like the young wealthy man they can never be perfect.
So Jesus’s formula for being perfect and gaining heaven is composed of doing things that human beings cannot do. (Hmmm, even the Apostles turned out to not be so perfect after all.) And the point is you are only saved through God’s grace.
So Jesus gives two methods to attain heaven
1) Be perfect (impossible)
2) Or ask for God’s mercy awarded through belief that Jesus is the savior
Now in Matthew 19:23,24 Jesus seems to rag upon the rich — (19,23) Verily I say unto you that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (19,24) And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
…..What you fail to realize is that the above is being said in the context of entering heaven through being “perfect”. which those listening to Jesus understand because they ask, “Who then can be saved?” They see themselves in the same boat as the rich kid even though they are not wealthy. The mistake is that we fail to properly understand what a “rich man” is. Here (19:29) is the list of things a man must give up to be “perfect” — “houses or brethren or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands”. So if you are rich in family and friends are you a rich man? In context I think Jesus would say you are and “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”. So the listeners ask, “Who then can be saved?”
All are rich in worldly concerns and can never be “perfect” therefore only God’s grace remains as a way into heaven.
I hope I helped you to understand the meaning of that part of Matthew.
Eugene WR Gallun
There was a form of communal living in the early church, however everyone was free to join or not join and to contribute as much as they felt willing. This isn’t communism in any sense of the word.
MarkW,
Anything that allows people freedom is not communism, which cannot co-exist with freedom.
Revisiting Matthew 19:16-30
It seems the king James translation is not a great translation.
The two themes being played against each other seem to be redemption through good works and redemption through grace alone
The young man is asking about redemption through good works but Jesus ultimately replies that redemption only comes from grace.
There is a failure among Christians to understand the purpose of the commandments. They were not meant as a means to gain heaven but rather they were a means to create a civilized society which was an important step along the Path To God. And after the arrival of Christ some commandments were still operative in that by obeying them they prevented the loss of heaven through overt sin. (After accepting Christ one does not get to sin freely thinking one is “saved”.)
Why does Jesus object to being called “Good Master”? Because he is answering the young man as “The Man Jesus” born of woman and of flesh and blood. The pagan gods were supposedly composed completely of the “good”. Jesus is not like the pagan gods were supposed to be — and in a society that was 99.9% pagan that point needed continual emphasis to prevent his followers from have pagan expectations about his mission on earth. Jesus came to die.
Asked, “What shall I do that I may have eternal life?” Jesus answers “keep the commandments”. The point here is that Jesus does not say this suffices to gain the young man eternal life. Keeping the commandments will prevent the young man from LOSING eternal life through overt sin.
When the young man asks, “What lack I yet?” Jesus tells him to sell his possessions, give the money to the poor and then follow him. Why?
Money gives you a much greater opportunity to sin. So Jesus is really saying rid yourself of temptations and come follow me.
And it is the following of Jesus, the acceptance of him as savior that wins the young man eternal life.
So Jesus’s pronouncements on the rich are not about “being wealthy” but about the greater temptations wealth brings making it harder to avoid sin thus forfeiting heaven. After being “born again” (momentarily as sinless as a child) still you will be judged on the sins you commit after being saved and thus can still lose heaven.
Eugene WR Gallun
Matthew 19:28-30
This is rather odd. How can the 12 apostles judge the 12 tribes of Israel? After all, it is a given that judgment belongs to God alone. Not even Jesus judges but merely advocates.
Well, obviously the 12 tribes never became Christian and therefore Jesus is not their advocate. And without Jesus as their advocate the Hebrews cannot enter heaven.
So what is the point? The 12 tribes used the “laws” to judge each other. Men were judged by men. And that is exactly what they get in heaven. The 12 tribes will be judged by 12 men.
Judged in what sense? God judges who receives eternal life but listens to Jesus who is an advocate. God will also judge the 12 tribes but He will listen to the 12 apostles. (It is pretty much a given the 12 tribes are going to be condemn by the apostles for their treatment of Christians.)
So this all becomes understandable when we recognize that “back in the day” there was no such thing as an independent judiciary. A judge could pass sentence but that sentence was not final. The civil authorities who actually ruled had final judgment. So the 12 apostles can judge the 12 tribes but their judgment is not final. God is the ultimate authority.
So still what is the point? Jesus reassures Christians who are being judged (and condemned) by the 12 tribes that the tables will be turned — and Christians will ultimately judge the 12 tribes. That the first today will be the last then and that the last today will be the first then.
Eugene WR Gallun
i should clearly state that their are 3 groups in the story. The first group consists of Jesus by himself. The second group consists of apostles of indeterminate number. The third group consists of Hebrews. Jesus is talking to Hebrews not Christian converts.
The Hebrews believe in salvation through good works. Jesus teaches that salvation comes through grace alone. If the rich young man gives away his wealth he can no longer do good works to gain his salvation. The rich young man cannot accept the doctrine of salvation through grace alone. From his point of view to follow Jesus is to lose salvation. So he walks away.
Now poor people can’t do the good works that insure salvation (sacrifice being one of them). The poor are open to the teachings of salvation through grace alone because “they can afford it”. Jesus preaches something that the poor would want to hear — salvation through good works being denied to them. Suddenly Jesus opens the gate to heaven for the poor.
Who was this written for? Well, quite obviously for Christians and potential converts.to Christianity. It discusses one of the biggies that distinguishes Christian belief from Hebrew belief.
Eugene WR Gallun
Ok, one final thing. Matthew 19:23-24 are not a general condemnation of wealth. Rather they are simply a statement that rich Hebrews who believed in salvation through works (which included expensive sacrifices and donations to the Temple) will be unable to give up that idea since they think they have a sure thing and are certain of obtaining heaven. They will never accept Jesus as savior and thus fail judgment.
Christian Hebrews who have committed to Jesus accepting that salvation comes through grace alone are not affected by their wealth (unless it leads them into sin but you don’t need to be rich to sin).
So it is perfectly ok to be a rich Christian. You will be judged in the same way as a poor Christian. No special treatment one way or the other. Only your sins are counted, not your money.
Eugene WR Gallun
I have some difficulty concluding that this “dog in the night-time” absence of barking in a single prominent seasonal address can be interpreted as a backpedal from the egregiously stupid faceplant Bergoglio perpetrated in Laudato Si.
He may be “flexible,” but it’s inconceivable that such a senior Roman Catholic churchman is going to be that “flexible.”
As a former Catholic, (who left the church when the priest’s sermons confused Biblical concepts with medieval catholic mythology,) I was disgusted with the this Pope’s misguided attempts at political correctness. After the Galileo debacle you would have thought the pontiff would have stepped lightly into the scientific realm, unfortunately no. Maybe the next Pope can convince me to rejoin the congregation with a little more spiritual approach.
Not worth losing faith because of a priest, a church or even the Franciscans. Constantine the Great with the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 brought a long period of stability, peace and prosperity to the West. Somewhat doubtful everyone in Vatican City State ignored it.
Stability, peace and prosperity all declined in the West after Christianity was legalized, then replaced paganism as the official religion of the Roman Empire, as shown by Gibbon in Decline and Fall.
Correlation ?
The start of the decline preceeded the advent of Christianity by hundreds of years.
Correlation ?”
That was my first thought, too. I read Gibbon’s Decline & Fall a couple of times, and Tacitus, Suetonius, W & A Durant, etc., and spent many thousands of hours reading lots of other ancient historians, mainly about the Roman Empires, West and East.
In the long run Christianity gave the empire a good moral basis (inherited largely from Judaism). Whether someone is a believer or not, morality is necessary for a functioning society. Every empire has its moral code, and if that declines so does the society.
The current parallels are worrisome. When the IRS and the country’s Attorney General take sides politically against individuals and groups whose only ‘crime’ is having a different point of view, and when a government bureau can cause immense environmental carnage without a single head rolling, we’re headed in the wrong direction. Even twenty years ago there would have been resignations in the EPA.
And now there’s no Eastern empire people can escape to; this is the last bastion.
Nonsense.
That was the Council that voted on the Trinity. It was not a unanimous decision.
Those who disagreed were hounded and mercilessly put to death or treated as heretics, including poor old Arius who was banished.
It resulted over time in more murder and death than any other act. The Albigensien Crusades, the obliteration of the Cathars and the Bogomils. The Inquisition, the Jewish pogroms, the slaughter of the Protestants – the list goes on and on.
Probably just senile and forgets what is on his plate.
From one centrally controlled, top down religion to another. Whichever is believed on mass does nothing to bring me any optimism.
Some in the Church confuse charity with Communism. I don’t believe Christ ever advocated turning charity over to the government or making government more powerful over individual lives. Individuals helping others on their own initiative is charity and is not inconsistent with Capitalism. Governments forcibly taking from individuals to give to others (as in Communism) seems to me to be quite different from Christ’s message.
This is the analogy I use when I read about priests or Christian ministers who say that government should spend money on X to help the poor. Jesus used persuasion whereas governments use force. I ask them to please show me in the Bible where Jesus said “Go to your neighbor’s house and take money out of his purse/wallet to pay for your pet project.” But yet, that is what they are advocating when they say the government should pay for it. It irritates me that these so called Christians advocate for the use force against other people.
Well that seems to confirm it is religion not climate change, that causes terrorism.
🙂
My assumption is that the pope was paid to push the climate stuff, maybe someone offered a large sum of money to the Catholic church to push the agenda.
I happened to be looking through a church bulletin of a former pastor just to see what goes on in his newer Christian Reformed Church back in Canada and they had in the bulletin to pray for the Paris climate conference. I had other reasons for leaving church completely but had I still been a part of the Reformed church, that would have had me fuming. The Catholic church isn’t the only church going apostate.
I doubt that Francis has had second thoughts, let alone a change of heart. He won the Communist Vatican palace coup over his conservative predecessor. “Climate change” is a central article of faith among his Jesuit and other Marxist brethren, so Cuba is liable to have free elections before the new Catholic Church recants its doctrine.
Indeed. Well said Gloateus.
The Church didn’t lift the ban on Galileo’s work until 1822. They didn’t pardon him till 1992. I fully expect it to take just as long to admit they were wrong about CAGW.
The Pope has company. CNN’s top 10 stories for 2015 didn’t include the COP confernce or anything else about climate change..
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/world/10-top-stories-of-2015-animations/
Out of sight, out of mind.
Good point – maybe the recent so-called agreement in Paris convince his holiness that this is not about science? I think he knew, but was disappointed by the inept party-goers unable to do much more than plan next year’s party location while accepting more funds from generous, yet ignorant, nations. Perhaps he has realized that green tech helps the rich and taxes the poor with high energy costs? The holier than thou celebrities can afford such nonsense. Most of us can’t – so why would we want to follow anybody’s advice over this, who doesn’t have to fear the consequences, as we do?
When you are the spiritual leader of a billion people perhaps the best way to get something is to passively withhold your approval.
And perhaps just how they like it. Fear was established about 10 years ago. Research funding was increased dramatically. Energy underpinnings were rattled.
Perhaps staying off the radar while a few billion here and there gets squandered is just fine.
And drum roll the most common juicy justification …. “ya mean yud rather have dirty energy versus a cleaner future” …
They’ve got the world by the balls.
Perhaps the climate has changed for the Pope.
Perhaps he was promised more aid to poorest nations than was announced. Alarmists most likely used him when he thought he was using them.
Once you decide to play in the mud with ner do wells it becomes obvious that destroying your opponent by any means is all that matters.
Few have the stomach for it.
Break a man to the point of no recovery and you have a better chance of creating that type of mindset.
I don’t think that the Pope wanted another Galileo incident and so wanted to support science – not knowing that the new consensus was with the warmists while the true science is with the realists. The consensus in Galileo’s day was that the Sun orbitted the Earth. Recently, there have been grumblings in the church ranks, I’ve also read (grain of salt there). Surely, there are realists within their ranks who can actually convince those (without ulterior motives) to pick the winning side – for once!
This RCC focused press is like a pulp fiction detective plot.
Sherlock Holmes, we need you.
This is the curious case of the
dogPope who did notbark in the nightmention climate/environment at Christmas noon in the Vatican.It is evidence of something, but probably only that the Pope’s ultimate mentor, the omnipotent omnipresent supernatural being, was believed by the Pope to have advised against exclaiming on climate on his celebrated day of birth.
If there is self-correction in process by the RCC on climate, surely it will it be cached in the cloak of mysterium; the history of Christianity shows that.
John
I would observe that Martin Luther was right.
Simple sentence. Great observation yet the RCC continues to wield massive power.
Perhaps the lesson is the staying power of potent mass movements.