Posted on 05/22/2015 3:46:28 PM PDT by ebb tide
Via Life Site News come some frankly bizarre statements from the Vatican official who put together last month's Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity conference. Two major speakers at the conference were Jeffrey Sachs, widely criticized for the abject failure of his Millennium Villages initiative, and Ban-Ki moon, current secretary general of the United Nations—both of whom are extremely pro-abortion. Which the Catholic Church is not.
Stefano Gennarini asks Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Sciences, whether he knew about the pro-abortion and population control chops of his two big guests and whether that mattered.
The reply:
I’ve just come back from Argentina, where I attended a conference to combat new forms of slavery, like human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and organ trafficking, which I consider, together with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, to be a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, there is not only the drama of abortion, but there are also all these other dramas, in which you should also be interested, because they are closely related. The climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.
Wuh?
The climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion....
Let's keep it going: And abortion and birth control can lead to sex, which can lead to smoking, which can also lead to...the climate crisis...and all this can also lead to abortion...
And by the way, if you don't get with the program about addressing climate change through coercive means, the prelate will see you in hell, teabaggers! When asked "Several Catholic intellectuals and media sources criticized your decision to collaborate with Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs on climate change, because of their positions on abortion and population control. Do you have any reply to these concerns?," here's the response:
The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us, but not my superiors, who instead authorized me, and several of them participated.
Double wuh? on that one.
If stopping abortion ever regains the edge over "climate change" at the Vatican as a top issue, the archbishop may think about courting those gas-guzzling Tea Partyers in the United States. According to Pew, about 59 percent are against abortion in "all or most cases," compared to just 42 percent of all Americans.
As it happens, global fertility and poverty rates are declining and global temperatures seem to be moderating over the past couple of decades (more important, as Ronald Bailey points out, a belief in man-made global warming doesn't actually dictate any specific policy response).
So maybe we're all good here?
What is going on?
Pope Francis seems to be totally lost and confused. Either that or an evil man.
And don't forget constipation. On those unusually hot days, all my friends tell me they spend the day in the restroom.
Same for those unusually cold days.
Hello restroom...hello Al.
I’m tired, but I must be more tired than I think. I’ve read this twice now and still can’t decipher where the archbishop’s replies and the author’s commentary end and begin.
Well...with an Archbishop involved...we know what causes the constipation.
“Not tonight, honey boy...I have a hemhorrhoid.”
I recommend you click on the link to the original article.
Pax
Man proposes, God disposes.
No matter how high in the hierarchy any one person may within the Christian church, there is always one Voice from above which speaks with ultimate authority. And it is incumbent upon the ones listening to hear with clarity of mind, and apply that to clarity of purpose.
No matter how it is dressed up, “climate change” is a huge hoax. If the climate is changing, then it for the ingenuity of man to ADAPT to it, not to try to somehow “reverse” or “repair” that change. We have the technology to adapt, we do not have to smash the existing technology in a vain effort to “undo” the imagined damage.
We do not need the modern-day Luddites.
The Luddites were 19th-century English textile workers who protested against newly developed labor-economizing technologies from 1811 to 1816. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage laborers, leaving them without work.
Although the origin of the name Luddite is uncertain, a popular theory is that the movement was named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. The name evolved into the imaginary General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.
Joseph WORKED!!!! They were NOT impoverished!!!! Geesh...are you Jesse Jackson???
This is all nonsense.
The climate change hoax is there to promote population control.
Now THAT causes abortion!
2 Corinthinians 8
>> For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich he became poor, for your sakes; that through his poverty you might be rich.<<
Unlike Jesse Jackson and yourself, St. Joseph did not live in a welfare state.
What the HELL are you talking about?
You are no Christian if you don’t know the difference in being poor and being impoverished.....OMG! What has happened to FREEPERS??????
OMG!!! abortion in the Catholic Church????? OMG!!!
The Gospel of Luke says that at the presentation of the Infant Jesus in the Temple, Joseph brought as an offering "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons," which in Leviticus 5:7 and elsewhere is specified as the offering for the poor who cannot afford a lamb from the flock.
I was always told, too, that if Mary and Joseph had had much money, they would have gotten to Bethlehem quicker and gotten some nice accommodations, instead of getting there more slowly (probably Joseph went on foot) there when there was nothing available but a stable in which Mary could give birth.
Jesus Himself was surely poor, because Scripture says He took on the nature of a lowly and humble servant (Zechariah 9:9; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6-8). He said, "Bird have their nests and foxes their dens, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." And by the time our Savior endured the tortures of the cross for us, His earthly possessions amounted to no more than the clothes on His back which were divided up by the soldiers who crucified Him.
And then the Bible says Jesus was so poor that he couldn’t afford his own tomb for his burial.
There's no shame in being poor. I don't know why you would want to bring in the name of Jesse Jackson, whom I associate not with the working poor, but with chronic welfare people living in degrading dependency, and jet-set charlatan revrums loaded with bling.
What are you talking about? You make no sense.
Thanks for the ping. I have no idea of what she has been babbling about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.