Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why is the Vatican Backing Climate Change Theory?
The Christian Post ^ | May. 25 2007 | John-Henry Westen

Posted on 05/29/2007 9:15:37 AM PDT by Alex Murphy

On May 10, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican's representative at the United Nations, addressed the Economic and Social Council of the UN on the hot topic of climate change. His comments were disturbing to many since he seemed to indicate the Vatican was taking sides in the contentious debate around the causes of climate change.

Furthermore, by failing to clarify that the Vatican does not support population control as a means to address global warming his use of the terminology employed by groups advocating population control as the primary solution to avert disaster is also raising eyebrows.

Archbishop Migliore stated, "The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity's role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable . . . and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well."

While debate among climate scientists rages about the human contribution to climate change and global warming, many are concerned that the Vatican ambassador has chosen to take sides on this controversial issue.

A few months ago the Evangelical leadership of the United States ventured into similar territory when the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) published the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The statement claimed that "climate change" is "human-induced" and would result in the deaths of "millions of people…most of them our poorest global neighbors," through climatological disasters such as hurricane Katrina.

Prominent Evangelical spokesmen, including Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson, and the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land called on the NAE to back down from its controversial stand "We believe there should be room for Bible-believing evangelicals to disagree about the cause, severity and solutions to the global warming issue . . . Global warming is not a consensus issue, and our love for the Creator and respect for His creation does not require us to take a position," Dobson, Land and others wrote.

In language that could be equally addressed to the Vatican, Dobson told the NAE that certain individuals "are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."

Another concerning comment in the Archbishop's address to the UN was a glowing reference to "sustainable development", UN lingo which has long been associated with population control. "There is still time to use technology and education to promote universally sustainable development before it is too late," he concluded.

Those in the pro-life community who have been following developments at the United Nations for the past decade are well acquainted with the language employed by Archbishop Migliore. It is the same as that which has been spouted by those seeking to force population control on developing nations by inciting fear of climate disaster and false promises of prosperity with from depopulation.

Joan Veon, a veteran UN expert who has reported on about 100 United Nations conferences explained what UN policy-makers mean when they use the term sustainable development. In 1992 during the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development Veon observed: "Sustainable development basically says there are too many people on the planet, that we must reduce the population."

Not only UN experts but also national leaders have admitted publicly that population control lies at the heart of plans to combat global warming.

Last month China boasted that its one-child policy, which has been criticized by many nations for including forced abortion and sterilization, had reduced greenhouse gases. Speaking at a meeting in Oslo on the UN's Kyoto Protocol, Hu Tao of China's State Environmental Protection Administration said the one-child population control policy has slowed "global warming" by limiting the population to 1.3 billion. "This has reduced greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

In 2004 Russian presidential economic advisor Andrei Illarionov called the Kyoto Protocol - a UN sponsored treaty to reduce greenhouse gases - an "undeclared war against Russia" since it required depopulation. Quoting a British team of scientists and government officials Illarionov said, "As long as you reduce your population, you can meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements."

Recently population control advocates have become more open about their agenda. A report published May 7 by the Optimum Population Trust declared that the best "carbon-offset strategy" was to reduce the number of human beings and thus defeat the "global warming" phenomenon.

"Population limitation should therefore be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations," read the report, A Population-Based Climate Strategy. "The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has," the report says. "The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population."

The stance of most of the pro-life movement regarding the environment was recently expressed by Czech President Vaclav Klaus in March of this year. "All of us are very much in favour of maximum environmental protection and protection of nature," he said in an interview with the Cato Institute. "But it has nothing in common with environmentalism, which is ideological and practically attacking our freedom."

Environmentalism is, he said "a way of introducing new forms of statism, new forms of masterminding human society from above."

Should the Vatican wish to get into the game of prediction of man-made climate disasters perhaps they should revisit Biblical interpretations of natural disasters resulting from the sinfulness of mankind. The Biblical account of Noah's Ark describes the whole known population of the earth being drowned in a flood except for Noah and his family, who were faithful to God.

To say nothing of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood was caused, teaches the Church, not by global warming, but by global sinning.

TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics; Religion & Science

1 posted on 05/29/2007 9:15:38 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy


2 posted on 05/29/2007 9:19:54 AM PDT by MrEdd (L. Ron Gore creator of "Fry-n-tology" the global warming religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Lack of bollocks.

3 posted on 05/29/2007 9:29:01 AM PDT by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

I might add:

Feel good gesture.
Indifference to unnecessary costs.
Political correctness.
Guilt over the treatment of Galileo.
The death of intellectual scientific pursuits by the clergy...

4 posted on 05/29/2007 9:39:24 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Why is the Vatican Backing Climate Change Theory?

Archbishop Migliore stated, "The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity's role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable . . . and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well."

Could it be that brother Migliore
does know or trust in Elohim,
the creator of the universe?
b'shem Yah'shua
5 posted on 05/29/2007 11:00:28 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

“Why is the Vatican Backing Climate Change Theory?”

I would highly doubt if that’s what he’s doing - I don’t think he’s that dumb.

He must make some sort of statement (s, however, because he knows that proper stewardship of our environment is one of the _ individual _Christian’s responsibilities toward God - bit in THIS order:

“..the pope considers an authentic...theology: one that puts [1] God and the life of the spirit first, [2] _direct_ charitable care of others second, [3] and _only then_ draws consequences for a just social order.”

At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to “respect creation” while “focusing on the needs of sustainable development”. The Pope’s message ... that “disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa”.

.. About four years ago the progressives began ..redefining environmentalism as “creation care”, ....

Although the [ ] World Council of Churches in Geneva has had a department to investigate climate change since 1990, churches have come late to the debate. “The [environment and religion] is a no-brainer, but we are all only now realising it”, said Claire Foster, environmental policy adviser to the Church of England.

[[[ World Council of Churches is the largest coalition of leftist religious denominations in the United States and has a long record of financial support for Communist regimes: ]]]]

[[[ Pope Benedict, on the other hand, denounces Marxist/Communist influence warning where it leads: ]]]

Many faiths also realise their potential to influence politicians and financiers. A survey by US bank Citigroup found that the 11 major faiths now embrace 85% of the world’s population and are the world’s third largest group of financial investors. In the US the United methodist church pension fund alone is worth $12bn-$15bn (£6bn-£7bn). Total investment of US churches is nearly $70bn. Switching to ethical investments would be hugely significant.

One Catholic priest impatient for change is Seán McDonagh, a Columban missionary and author of books on ecology and religion. “The Catholic church’s social teaching on human rights and justice has been good, but there has been little concern about the impact on the planet. The church has been caught up on its emphasis on development and on resisting population control, but if we are pro-life we should be banging the drum now about climate change.” ..”

Source: John Vidal and Tom Kington in Rome Friday April 27, 2007 The Guardian,,2066711,00.html


by Sonja Boehmer-Christensen

1. The main diplomatic aim of the UK was clear from [Secretary of State for environment] David Miliband’s performance - to protect and encourage the struggling carbon market. His message was: Act speedily now before it is too late and do not allow a ‘gap’ to appear in emission trading.

He was not at all happy about my question what the UK hoped to gain from the ‘combat against GW’.

2. Miliband finished his speech with an observation from World Wildlife Fund : “They have calculated that if everyone in the world were to consume natural resources and generate carbon dioxide at the rate we do in the UK, we’d need three planets to support (us). We are depleting our natural resources at a faster rate then we are replenishing them”. The man must be ignorant, environmentally speaking. Even my third-year students laughed at the replenishing and had no idea how WWF reached that number. (But many church people liked the idea of reducing (over)consumption - the other side of serving the poor?)

3. The Vatican’s objective was less clear. There is clearly a policy and doctrinal debate going on inside the Vatican, with the Pope coming under pressure to join ‘Al Gore’ and the World Council of Churches to pronounce an encyclical on combating global warming. He is resisting and, according to one insider, unlikely to give in, though a general statement on our responsibility to look after God’s creation and use nature rationally is likely. The last Pope wasn’t much interested in greenery either, but in 1990 coined the term ecological conversion, which was mentioned by several speakers.

4. Raul Estrada-Oyuela (chief UNFCC/Kyoto Protocol negotiator) had an interesting position that seriously challenged that of the UK. After pointing out that Kyoto was about emission reduction, not the creation of a market for a new commodity (carbon), he stated that “ the main purpose, mitigation, cannot be adjusted to serve the interests of merchants and dealers. The overarching guidance is preserving the creation and (that) may be translated in this case as climate environmental integrity” (.....Whatever that is..). There was no rush to complete complex negotiations about the future of Kyoto.

He also said “emission trading is a fiasco in Europe...” and suggested new Protocols to the climate convention not based on national but sectoral targets as a way forward. There will be no giving in by USA and Australia, or the industrialising countries (who see targets as brakes on development) to EU/UK demands.

He would rather have a gap in commitments (after 2012 when current commitment period of Kyoto ends) than satisfy the ‘carbon market’, which is of course just what the UK and World Bank want to protect, see their current campaign, e.g. at UN Security Council, G8, even involving the Royal Society (not to mention the BBC),. the whole establishment is ‘on message.’ In my view they - the finished Blair Government, but no change in sight with Al Gore advising Brown - are overdoing it to their own detriment. (Did you know that Al Gore believes in Creationism, or at least is reported to have said so when meeting some religious groups last week.) Raul spoke late on the second day , however.

5. But first came the scientists, with Prof. A. Zichichi of CERN /World Federation of Scientists, later supported by other Italian scientists and Fred Singer) who completely rubbished the climate models and in effect removed the status of science from meteorology. Zichichi was followed by Rahmstorf (Berlin) who gave the ‘consensus’ IPCC line. He disappeared soon afterwards and did not engage with his critics, just handed out a ‘fact’ sheet with the hockeystick etc.

The World Council of Churches was visibly appalled by this science challenge, as were the Anglican bishops (Liverpool). “We were not consulted about the people invited here and shall protest,” one of them confided to me. Another later challenged my academic credentials. Yet the US Evangelicals were represented by a serious scientifically literate ‘sceptic’ (Calvin Beisner).

The green lobby inside the Churches, seemingly strongest in Africa (’you made the mess, now pay for it’), Germany (‘catastrophe is nigh, but we may yet save creation..’) and the UK (‘we must aid Africa, not to save the planet would be sinful’), was very disturbed to have to listen to so many science ‘deniers’. Others seemed worried about the implications of all this environmentalism for Man’s relationship with God, something I have no views on or knowledge of, other than sensing that the ‘deification’ of Nature was a doctrinal worry.
But we had to listen to the AGW believers in turn and at length; there were some very good sermons pulling at all heart strings.

Australian bishop Christopher Toohey was the peace-maker and spoke last...’we must help the poor whether the climate is changing or not.’ So I even discussed the question of immortality, but this was over breakfast.

Indeed, all positions were justified with reference to the poor. Is this new in world/church politics?

My arrogant impression was that too many of the church representatives present while of ‘good will’ and obviously lovely, caring people, were illiterate scientifically and in development economics.

I should mention that I was allowed three ‘interventions,’ one quite long, to explain my political analysis of why the EU was so keen on climate alarmism.

Eager to find substitutes for carbon fuels, which it is running out of or has ‘closed’ (the coal mines), it was using the climate threat, suitably exaggerated, to ensure that the burden of this conversion to a low-carbon economy was spread globally to avoid ‘competitiveness’ problems and also, to encourage private money flow to the ‘South’..but with what effect and expectations?

Energy-intensive industries are already moving to China, the main beneficiary by far from the Kyoto-CDM scheme.

bttt for More:

6 posted on 05/29/2007 6:48:47 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (DemocRATS: demagogues that mine the stupidity of their constituencies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; wideawake
Archbishop Migliore stated, "The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity's role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable . . .

And evolution is "more than a hypothesis."

7 posted on 05/29/2007 7:04:17 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ("Qumah HaShem, veyafutzu 'oyeveykha, veyanusu mesan'eykha mippaneykha!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

The Vatican’s overall record on science is wanting.

8 posted on 05/30/2007 8:42:51 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson