Is the Pope Backing Away from the Climate Issue?

pope-francis

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.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/25/christmas-message-pope-condemns-brutal-acts-terrorism-ignores-climate-change/

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.

132 thoughts on “Is the Pope Backing Away from the Climate Issue?

  1. 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 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.

        one data point doesn’t make a trend.

        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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  4. 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.

  5. I’ll put it another way, the Vatican should be very embarrassed at having been used as “useful fools” by the Communists.

  6. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

  7. 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.

    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.”

  8. 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 ?”
        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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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!

  14. Reported by Breitbart,
    “Conspicuous by its absence [in the Pope’s annual Christmas message to the world] 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.”

    This RCC focused press is like a pulp fiction detective plot.
    Sherlock Holmes, we need you.
    This is the curious case of the dog Pope who did not bark in the night mention 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

    • Simple sentence. Great observation yet the RCC continues to wield massive power.
      Perhaps the lesson is the staying power of potent mass movements.

  15. The Latin Pope and his Vatican needs the blessings of the terrorists to drive the flock into his loving, taxing and dictator arms. That’s why the Vatican Bank funds ISIS using Erdogan in Turkey as the emissary of the Latin Pope to ISIS.

  16. The Catholic Church nullified the Magna Carta, and blamed climate change on witchcraft in the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church should stick with that it knows, and stay out of politics and science.

    • When people have burned all available fuel, in order to survive the cold, it seems the next preferred fuel is women. At least, it is what history seems to indicate. GK

    • I don’t know where you got the idea that the Catholic Church nullified the Magna Carta. The Archbishop of Canterbury probably had a hand in writing it. Eight hundred years ago there were no Protestant archbishops.
      magnacarta800th.com/schools/biographies/magna-carta-bishops-stephen-langton

  17. Jesus was very much a capitalist :-

    The parable of the Talents is a good one, but the best one is the Anti-Labor Union, Pro-Free Market Parable of the Vineyard Workers.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20%3A1-16
    BTW, the Pope teaming up with the Godless Communists and Marxists is just plane counter productive. They will use their looted resources to undermine the Church. No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God. The first thing Castro did was drive the Catholic Church out of Cuba.

    • co2islife,
      “No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God.”
      Such a statement is so utterly rediculous, that you (I feel) destroy your credibility if you resort to it in some sort of attempt to elevate your atheism to a given. By definition, such an Entity is vastly above any such leader, if one exists.
      And Christ did not promise worldly success to those who followed him, but just the opposite; persecution. The Catholic (or any ostensibly Christian) church being driven out of Cuba is fulfillment of Prophecy (if anything), not an indication it’s invalid.
      Christians don’t win the worldly battle, according to the Book, they lose big time . . over and over again, just as Jesus did. Rumors of Christianity being some sort of escape from harsh realities, are greatly exaggerated, it seems to me, as the Romans once learned first hand, so to speak. You hold a gun to my head and say you will fire if I don’t deny Him, and will I say fire away, big shot, you cannot harm me but for a moment with such a pin prick.
      (Quit learning about what it means to Follow Christ, from those who take it as a given that he was just a man, if that, I advise.)

      • co2islife,…“No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God.”…Such a statement is so utterly ridiculous, that you (I feel) destroy your credibility if you resort to it in some sort of attempt to elevate your atheism to a given. By definition, such an Entity is vastly above any such leader, if one exists.

        Elevate Atheism? Where did that come from? That comment was regarding the nature of “Godless” communism, and has nothing to do with me or my views at all. Totalitarians/Communists almost always outlaw religion. They do that because you can’t have any power above the state. People are to own their faith to the Government. Anyway, you clearly misunderstood my comment.

        Under the Fidel Castro regime, Catholicism suffered from various forms of persecution and harassment. In Castro’s early years, he reportedly jailed, killed, or exiled 3,500 Catholic priests and nuns.

        http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/12/17/us-cuba-breakthrough-is-a-victory-for-the-vaticans-line-of-detente/

      • CO2,
        “Elevate Atheism? Where did that come from? ”
        The sentence I quoted . .
        “No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God.”
        That is nonsensical if God exists. Only on atheism (in logic lingo) does the sentence have any truth value. I’m not disputing what you’re saying overall . . I really am concerned about your credibility, since I consider you a valuable ally in this matter.

      • PS ~ To put it simply, totalitarian leaders can put God above themselves if they feel like it, and in a sense we may be seeing the development of a synthetic religion. “We” actually speak of it often around here, and I highly suspect if the totalitarians have their way completely, there will be a God of sorts placed above the ruling elite.

    • “No one can be above the power of a totalitarian leader, not even God.”
      That is nonsensical if God exists.

      Sorry, I should have been more clear. Totalitarian leaders [want] to have absolute power, that is why they are called totalitarians. They usually outlaw religion so that they are viewed as the most powerful being. A totalitarian outlawing religion and declaring himself the most powerful being doesn’t make it so however, and I didn’t intend it to make it sound as if it does. Sorry about the confusion. Historical examples are the Pharoses of Egypt, and some of the Roman Emperors declaring themselves divine.

      • I appreciate your recognition of what to me is part of the “elevation” I was cautioning against, on what might be called the ultimate level. I also caution against assuming that totalitarians, even if they don’t believe in that sort of God actually above them, might not see placing a God above them on what might be called the public relations level, as advantageous.
        It is difficult for me to speak of this aspect in an environment wherein people presume that a leader that claims to be under a God, actually believes they are. To me, the leadership in Saudi Arabia for instance, is possibly atheistic, pretending they believe they are under a God, because the alternative leaves them without a significant source of authority/legitimacy.
        The same with a Pope, to my mind . . and the Pharoses of Egypt, and some of the Roman Emperors declaring themselves divine. I don’t assume they really believe what they claim, just because we’re talking about religion. Talk is cheap, so to speak, and while someone who believes in a God (that “demands” believers acknowledge their belief) would naturally be motivated to do so, the non-believer in any such God, is under no such natural motivation to acknowledge their unbelief.
        Therefor I caution against speaking as though atheist totalitarians would necessarily be averse to pretending they believe in a God of some sort above them, for the “opiate of the masses” value they might see in covering their “naked” dictatorship with some priestly robes, so to speak.

  18. It may be of interest to see what specific problem Pope Francis has referred to in his four Christmas messages. In none of them had he mentioned climate change so in so far as he did not mention the issue this year there is no trend. What he has focused on in his Christmas messages tends to be areas of the world where there is conflict. So, in 2012 he referred to Syria, certain countries in Africa and China. In 2013 he referred to Syria, certain countries in Africa and the issue of human trafficking. In 2014 he referred to the Middle East, Ukraine, certain countries in Africa and problems affecting children around the world, both born and unborn. In 2015 her referred to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, other areas of the Middle East, certain countries in Africa, Ukraine and Colombia. So his Christmas message of 2015 fits very strongly into the pattern of the previous Christmas messages.

  19. Does the Catholic church still subscribe to the notion that the pope is infallible? Or did that go out the window with Pope Urban VIII?
    It took the church a couple hundred years before they finally admitted GALILEO was right and the Pope was wrong.
    I hope that Catholics will implore the Pope to figure this out and get on the side of science this time.

    • Papal infallibility only comes into play when he speaks on matters of Church dogma. Most the the rules and rituals of the RCC are not dogma. Dogmatic issues would include Jesus as the Son of God, the Holy Trinity, etc. See the Apostles Creed for a good example of dogma. Climate change, not so much. Much of what most people and most Catholics for that matter, consider dogma, is not. When he does speak on dogma he uses the plural “We”, that being him and the Holy Ghost are speaking.

    • The fallibility of the pope is restricted to a VERY narrow set of circumstances. Popes had mistress, and many scandals. Even a Papal BULL or say a restricted reading list does NOT fall under or imply any mark of infallibly. Only when a statement is made and clearly made that it is binding and does fall under infallibly and the authority of the seat of Peter is THEN such to be considered infallible.
      So general statements like don’t eat beans on Tuesdays or fish on some other day NEVER did fall under the definition of infallibly. Don’t eat beans on Tuesday or fish on some other day is not doctrine and it not something that falls under infallibility – in most cases it is a simple appeal to discipline.
      The idea that all actions and statements of the Pope are infallible is not only laughable but something never claimed or taught by the universal church.
      As for the church being wrong on Galileo? Actually, they up held the scientific process very well.
      First up, the church has no doctrine teaching on the earth being the center of the universe, or planets revolve around the earth.
      The “general” consensus of the day (the science community) certainly taught the earth was the center.
      However, since the church did not have a doctrine and teaching on the earth being the center, then they COULD NOT and DID NOT convent Galileo of hearsay. This also explains why Galileo received such a light sentence of house arrest. House arrest mean you have New Year’s parties, Christmas parties and people over to drink your booze (people are free to come and go). It not like he was sent to prison or locked up in some dungeon. Such a sentence amounts to a slap on the wrist.
      Of course the problem was Galileo was wrong and his math and science FAILED under scrutiny of the church.
      First, even today grade school children know that the planets don’t revolve in circles. In fact even grade school children by at least 3rd grade know the difference between a circle and an ellipse. The claim of planets revolving around in around in perfect circles was dead wrong.
      Next up Galileo claimed the sun was the center of the universe. Once again, grade school children know this to be DEAD wrong. Are you actually standing here and stating the church should have agreed to such nonsense?
      And today we all well know that the sun and our solar system is moving – Galileo was not only wrong on the sun being the center, but also stated that the sun is immovable (is stationary). The sun and our planets are Cleary moving through space – hence Galileo was wrong again.
      For the church to accept such nonsense could have held back science for a very long time.
      And in fact the BIG problem was looking at Galileo’s math, it simply did not add up. The math FAILED big time to explain why the planets speed up and then slowdown in their orbits. Such math was wrong, and only until the invention of calculus did math arrive that could explain this behavior. So under science scrutiny of the church, Galileo’s BASIC math did not add up and was WRONG!
      I mean, they are sitting in a court with Galileo’s manuscript and it would be a SIMPLE matter to quote that church doctrine of where the contradiction or hearsay existed. The BIG problem is the church did not (and does not) have such a doctrine and teaching on this matter! Hence ONLY the conviction of being “suspect” of teaching something against the church!
      You also note that today we OFTEN today call the system of planets the Copernican motion system. Funny how the fact of Copernicus being a catholic priest is left out!
      So Copernicus lectured and wrote with endorsement of clergy and
      Cardinals a considerable time BEFORE Galileo ever came along, and yet did not have any scandal? Why?
      So why a devout Christian and catholic priest Copernicus would go off and supposedly toss out all his faith and all of sudden Propose and proclaim a system of motion that goes against his very faith?
      And DURING the time of Copernicus a presentation to the pope on this Copernican motion system resulted in the pope not only being impressed, but giving the presenter a sizable gift.
      It was common for the Pope to give gifts for such presentations, but NOT if there is public scandal or something that goes against church doctrine.
      You have about 1500 years of one of the highest quality documented institutions called the universal church, and in all those 1000 plus years, you’ll not find one doctrine of proclamation that Christians are to believe the earth is a center of the universe as a tenant of their faith.
      I mean after 1000 years or so, you should be to find at least ONE document that states this church teaching! I should point out also that the church because of the lack of doctrine was NEVER able to convict Galileo of heresy.
      In the scientific inquisition, Cardinal Bellamy simply stated that you don’t have a mathematical proof and your silly circle idea which we know is false today does not stand up to our mathematical scrutiny. Cardinal Bellamy goes on to say therefore I’m not willing to accept your science UNTIL such time that its passes scrutiny. The most important point here is in PUBLIC Cardinal Bellamy was most open to the idea of accepting planets going around the sun, but would only do so with some proper math and science that supported this theory of which Galileo’s math and science claims did not show.
      As I pointed out children today by grade 3 know the difference Between an ellipse and a circle but apparently Galileo did not.
      This simply means the church was upholding very good scientific processes and scrutiny by rejecting something since the math did not add up correctly. To accept crazy ideas such as plants going around in circles when they don’t, or things like the sun is the center of the universe, which it is not, and that of the sun being a movable were all silly and incorrect scientific concepts.
      In other words you’re asking that the church should have made an act of faith to accept Galileo’s teaching, when in fact they used math, science and upheld the scientific process to reject Galileo’s flawed and incorrect theory.
      I should point out that the fact that I tell you the sky is blue does not mean I am endorsing the color blue, or in this case endorsing some institution – but we have to at least get our facts correct.
      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Albert, I think it is also worth mentioning that the doctrines of infallibility, the Immaculacy of Mary and the College of Cardinals not being able to remove a Pope once selected are all quite recent RCC positions (1800’s).
        It is changes in long standing traditions and teachings which are causing confusion within and without the RCC. Climate change teachings will also create casualties.
        The seeking of a Concordat with Hitler allowing the Pope to appoint all bishops in Germany (instead of electing them as per tradition) was crucial to the Pope’s decision to dismantle the German Catholic Worker’s Party – by far the largest in the country – and its many social institutions in the 1930’s. This paved the way for the rise of the National Socialist Party which was otherwise a third rate player. It was just such a Concordat with Croatia that provoked the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, precipitating WWI. Everyone remembers who the assassin killed, but not why. Sometimes it pay to investigate independently.
        Your point about the limitations of the Doctrine on Infallibility are welcome, because so many have overstated the claim. But it is also noteworthy that this is in the historical sense, recent. Theists may also note the infallibility claim was immediately followed by the Pope’s loss of all temporal authority save the tiny country of the Vatican State, and claim correlation means causation.

      • Albert from Alberta: your post seems to be quite critical of Galileo for not knowing things a child 400 YEARS later would find common knowledge. Should we also reject Plato for not knowing E=MC2? And what about that fraud, Newton? All his rambling about gravity and things falling at the same speed but no mention of the curvature of space or quantum theory. Clearly they were wrong.
        Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, science is a process that gradually gets closer and closer to the truth by making better theories then those before them. And Galileo’s theory, while flawed, was still better then the theory before it, Which ALSO used circles. It wasn’t until Kepler worked out the mathematics or elliptical orbits that they had a true fit with observations. Even then, there were small errors that came up that would be centuries in explaining.

      • Mr. Kallal,
        Your statement “First up, the church has no doctrine teaching on the earth being the center of the universe, or planets revolve around the earth.”
        I disagree. “..in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.[3] ” (From Wikipedia.
        and
        “On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”; while the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and … in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.”[39] The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[40]”
        Copernican books banned
        Following the Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace ordered that Foscarini’s Letter be banned, and Copernicus’ De revolutionibus suspended until corrected [meaning remove the concept of heliocentrism]. The papal Congregation of the Index preferred a stricter prohibition, and so with the Pope’s approval, on March 5 the Congregation banned all books advocating the Copernican system, which it called “the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture.”[3]
        Galileo’s works advocating Copernicanism were therefore banned, and his sentence prohibited him from “teaching, defending… or discussing” Copernicanism. In Germany, Kepler’s works were also banned by the papal order.[43]
        So Galileo was tried AND convicted for heresy.

  20. I’ve often wondered if those who believe in a spirit that creates and maintains life on earth, or even just the Gaia hypothesis, have considered the possibility that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is the earth’s way of replenishing a severely depleted natural resource that all life on earth desperately needs.
    After all, CO2 levels on earth have been at dangerously low levels for a long time. During the recent ice ages, atmospheric CO2 has dropped to 190 ppm or less, which is within range of mass extinction levels. Plant life on earth requires CO2 levels of 160 ppm, below which they die off, and with them, most of life on earth starts to die as well, since almost all higher life forms require plants as food. The long history of the earth is one in which carbon has been increasingly sequestered underground, trapped inside the earth, taken out of the ecosystem, where it is desperately needed to sustain life. Somehow, that carbon needs to be returned to the ecosystem, and mankind may just be nature’s mechanism for doing that. By digging and drilling and burning fossil fuels, we are returning that carbon to the life cycle of the earth, possibly saving the planet from extinction in the process.
    It’s bizarre that some people see carbon as the enemy of life on earth, when it is the primary component of all life, and without a plentiful supply of it in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, life on earth will literally die out. CO2 is the primary nutrient of life, not a poison of some kind.

    • It’s bizarre that some people see carbon as the enemy of life on earth

      It’s bizarre to you because you (like me) refuse to accept that the science can and is irrelevant. CO2 is simply a means to an end. Climate science is a means to an end. Scientists in general are a means to an end concerning this initiative. Many useful idiots involved in this whole affair.
      Read the Pope’s address to the UN. I was surprised how transparent he is being.
      http://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150925_onu-visita.html

      • Knutesea –
        I read the link you provided…
        The pope’s reference to: “technological power, in the hands of nationalistic or falsely universalist ideologies, is capable of perpetrating tremendous atrocities” is the key.
        I find it suspicious that the UN came into being in 1945 – just after Soviet International Socialism (a universalist ideology) defeated German National Socialism (a nationalistic ideology). AGW came into being in 1988 just as the Soviet Empire began collapsing.
        Al Gore Sr & his son ” the prophet” Albert A. Gore Jr were intimate with Armand Hammer – a communist sympathizer of the first order and son of Julius Hammer who was the founder of CPUSA.
        (I suspect that Junior’s middle initial “A.” is for “Armand”.)
        Junior’s daughter married the great grandson of Jacob Henry Schiff – the billionaire banker who financed the downfall of the czar, collaborated with Trotsky, and financed the Bolshevics.
        Sabotaging America’s impending hegemony as the Soviet empire was unraveling is the only rational explanation for why this fraud happened, when it happened, and why Al Gore is in the center of it all.
        The Pope referenced “falsely universalist ideologies” – was he prescient or oblivious to what this is all about.

  21. Good point! I guess that sometimes is better to back up from some controversial subjects and subjects you don’t master well. As for COP21, I stay with my idea: it was, at least partially, a waste of money, since it didn’t covered upone of the most important subject in climate change: the oceans….

  22. Just as a thought, I would love to hear this Pope comment on the socialism of Venezuela.
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • Tangentially he does in his UN speech. They are part of the excluded peoples and being excluded is YOUR fault if you are reasonably well off.
      He wants you to get with the program.

      • knutesea December 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm
        He wants you to get with the program.
        True, but what is the Program. Too many there think that the Pope is taking sides.
        Light a candle, burn some incense, and pray to whatever broken stones you worship. You do not want the Pope, this one or another on your side. The church has existed since .. the crucifixion or the moment when the watch maker said “let there be light.” .
        His Holiness is playing his own game. Its good many of you read and know scripture, but Machiavelli? Remember “who you are dealing with”. Rodrigo Borgia ring a bell.
        Oh, do note despite his personal shortcomings, he was a champion and defender of Western Civilization. Actually, he did quite well. Perhaps Francis is following some of his play book.
        Remember, if you seek the papacy’s blessing of your cause, you give the Papacy the moral authority over it, and you.
        Francis has the power of Excommunication, if the Alarmists do not in the future defer to Rome guess what?
        Sometimes we are all angels sometimes we are all…… as needed.
        There is a reason for the proverb “When you sup with the Devil bring a long spoon.”
        Oh and for the record, I am Byzantine Catholic, though we acknowledge the Pope.
        michael

        • Belated Merry Xmas to you and yours.
          I think the odds are very low that PF and his cadre gives too hoots about CAGW. They have bigger fish to fry as their frame of reference is a multi century struggle with competing religions namely Islam. One of the ways for the Papacy to remain relevant is to engraciate themselves to the UN. I see it as allies. Islam is an up en coming threat to the RRC. Islam will not waste the time of day with the UN. By validating his allegiance with the UN, the Papacy is thinking ahead and picking an easy fruit. The best way for the Papacy to further cement that allegiance is to support its pet cause.
          Sure money (carbon dollars) and popularity with the disenfranchised are nice, but I think he did it for the allegiance.
          This is wholly my opinion and I have no special insider track so rinse it out of your brain if necessary.

      • knutesea,
        are you also Knute?
        either way merry Xmas.
        Most of what you say I tend to agree with. Accept, up and coming for Islam. Their apex was the late 1600s to early 1700s.
        michael

        • Yes Knute.
          I sometimes have to log in as Knutesea in the wordpress. I don’t undertand it so I just go with it.
          I think Islam is back on the rise.
          Current POTUS really destabilized the Middle East balance and the Papacy is worried. Also doesn’t help to see organized crime resurfacing in his backdoor to thwart ISIS plants in Italy. The world is underestimating what’s happenning but the Pope is not.
          Again, only my opinion as I connect observed puzzle pieces.

  23. I have read a lot of comments decrying the Laudato Si encyclical and implying that somehow the pontiff had been duped etc. I fear such comments completely miss what Francis is up to. From his and the Vatican’s perspective the important issue is how the christian churches have become sidelined in moral debates in the western world.
    The SJW secularists have an argument that goes something as follows. The church believes in non- science, which we can prove. Therefore if they are wrong about this then they are also wrong on matters of morality such a same sex relations, abortion etc. Added to this various scandals in the various churches (which of course were highlighted and repeated ad nausem by same SJWs) and the new secularists have now reached a point of power and influence where any dissent from their orthodoxy can be guaranteed to produce howls of rage from the twitteratti. They of course overlook the point that their own morality is based on their own prejudices and is no more rooted in science than any of the world religions. True science by its very nature does not define good or evil, just what is or isn’t .
    Francis has very cleverly ( he is a Jesuit after all) turned this back on itself with his encyclical, by taking something which is dear to the SJWs and claiming it as the Church’s own, he puts himself and the church back in the centre of the debate. He is aware that in the fullness of time when the science turns out not to be so apocalyptical then no harm done (whether the same can be said for western economies is another question ) as nothing he has said so far is in contradiction with dogma ( see Jim G1s comment for explanation of dogma).

  24. “Pope Francis’ Christmas address, which traditionally touches on the gravest issues facing the world, completely omitted mention of the environment and climate change.” Great! Way to go Popey! Perhaps Cardinal Pell has drawn his attention to the failed basis of CAGW, and the need to stand clear of the collapsing structure..

  25. I did a post a week or so back and screwed up my beautiful new metaphor. Here I correct it and apply it to Francis and the likelihood of him repealing his opinions on Global Warming.
    A chipmunk can’t change its stripes.
    Eugene WR Gallun

  26. 99.9 % of the nations that attended CopOut 21 were only there because they thought they were getting FREE money !! I guess the Pope had his hand out too !!

    • Marcus
      Perhaps a tad rougher than needed ?
      Most were there for networking business opportunities. Many of the CAGW movement are well entrenched in the vision of a new energy frontier. Many likely arent sold on CAGW but dont want to get passed up in whatever new business arises. I personally have a friend who regularly bids upgrading substations for industry who are looking to be self sufficient. Google some of the energy corporations and you’ll see many attended as they would a biz conference.

      • knutesea, I was talking about representatives of countries ( 195 ), not the 39,805 leeches that tagged along !!

  27. I believe The Pope’s attraction to AGW is founded not on confidence in science but rather on a predilection for wealth redistribution and the unique opportunity AGW mitigation and climate reparations present.

  28. Maybe Pope Francis has realized, that he made himself, his church and his followers victim to the
    biggest #Ponzi scheme, #CO2 #finance #bubble!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/10/co2-finance-bubble.html
    #water #theft!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/p/water-deliver-with-srm.html
    Designed like a #religion, #dangerous like the #mafia!

    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/10/climatology-mafia-church.html
    BBC is cowardly admitting #geoengineering #SRM #HAARP pollution!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/12/bbc-cowardly-admitting-geoengineering.html
    Open Yr mind for the truth about #CO2!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/06/open-your-eyes-mind-connect-dots-see.html
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/07/gegenteil-der-luge-opposite-of-lie.html
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/07/legalizing-illegal-crime.html
    WAKEUP, LOOKUP and LEARN about #Geoengineering! #COP21
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/09/dieser-blog-soll-das-teilen-von.html
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/no-ccagw-only-criminal-ipcc-agenda.html
    Real scientists say NO ACCGW!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/10/31487-scientists-say-no.html
    #IPCC is for #Geoengineering not science.
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/no-ccagw-only-criminal-ipcc-agenda.html
    Don’t be fooled!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/10/die-katze-ist-aus-dem-sack.html
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/neuro-linguistic-programming-and.html
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2014/11/conditioning-for-chemtrails.html
    Protect Yourself, Your family & country by protecting Your language by Counter-NLP!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/2015/12/protect-language-by-counter-nlp.html
    #Geoengineering: Promise of Swindler!
    http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/11/promise-of-swindler-veheiung-des.html

  29. Who cares? I don’t even understand why a pope exists! The Vatican would still be functioning without a failed celebrity. Or are there people out there who still believe kissing his hand will cure their cancer?

  30. What we needed over the past few years was a media messaging meter that likely would have shown a massive effort leading up to Paris followed by a quiet era leading up to the U.S. presidential election. Unpopular over reach topics do not make a good environment for election messaging campaign strategies, eh Hillary. It makes the working class suspicious of the other messages. Dear leaders can claim a major mandate on this or that later as they see fit. So at this point it is just a new quiet era taking hold for scare tactics. Silence is sometime just as egregious as alarm messaging for its callousness and it takes a lot of agencies and biased media outlets to play along. Shush……….

  31. Eric, I hope you won’t mind if I share my Papal Poem again (please distribute to clergy and friends)
    My hope is that many church leaders read it.
    An Ode to the Church On Fighting Climate Change
    Bureaucrats and ‘global planners’
    Speak in agitated manners,
    Predicating great disaster:
    “Climate change we now must master!”
    Human guilt and blame beseeching:
    “Children, shame we should be teaching!
    Man has sinned, by overreaching
    Fragile Gaia’s limit!”
    Beware their new apostasy,
    Its prophesies are vanity.
    The firmaments will never be
    Controlled by mortal hands.
    So, make this world green as you can,
    But first, care for your fellow man!
    And leave Earth’s destiny to God’s great plan.
    All creation is God’s and He alone
    Commands the elements He owns,
    Perplexes any man’s control,
    Yet still, provides for every soul!

  32. The problem I have with this is that the most anti-life groups out there are Environmentalists. Some of their leaders describe humans species as a virus. Many support population control. The Pope should really read some of the writings of the Club of Rome. These people are really scary. China considered applying for carbon credits for their one child policy.
    Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
    Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”
    Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
    Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
    These people sound like NAZIs, and they are widely supported by many in the society. I seriously doubt people really understand how dark environmentalism truly is.
    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Rio20-Im-sure-youve-got-humans.jpg

  33. This is who the Pope is siding with? If his intent is to undermine the Church by teaming up with godless anti-life liberal atheists, then he is on the right path. These people have a great antipathy towards Catholic teaching.
    Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”
    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
    Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
    Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”
    Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”
    Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
    The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
    David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

  34. The pope will say whatever keeps him followers. He’s a salesman for the church. Perhaps climate alarmism was hitting the coffers.

Comments are closed.