The Church hierarchy, not only in the U.S. but at the Vatican and around the world as well, is fully under the spell of the environmental “green” obsession. It is, of course, only common sense to seek to be good and wise stewards of the earth on which we are born, the earth which we are to subdue and use wisely, but use nonetheless.
This most reasonable concern has been captured and carried to an obscene and deadly extreme by those who answer to an evil master. Just one of the myriad manifestations is “climate change,” (originally “global warming,” until the term was shown demonstrably to be fraudulent). This idea has inflamed the passion of much of the world-wide political left, including the Church hierarchy. A fact worthy of note is that many, if not most creditable climate and meteorological and geological scientists do not believe this phenomenon to be of significance, if it exists at all, and even so, human activity would not be the cause of any climate shift. Rather than being driven by credible science, the “climate change” issue is driven by a political agenda. Any crisis, real or imagined, begs solutions. The believers claim that it is human activity that is responsible for “climate change,” which will, without draconian measures, result in untold horror of heat waves, droughts, rising seas, disappearing islands, flooding of coastal cities, and more.
Describing the desired ends in friendly terms, (“sustainability” is a favorite) wins favorable responses because almost no thought is given to how these ends might be sought. The believers have great enthusiasm for their proposed remedies. These remedies are in two areas: economic shrinkage and population decline. These two efforts work hand-in-glove with each other: A slower economy will only support a smaller population and a smaller population will demand a smaller economy. There also seems a certain gleeful tone in the advocacy of shrinking both economies and population, primarily in the first world and primarily in the United States.
The Church claims that “climate change” will hurt the poor and vulnerable the most. Statements issued by bodies such as the Vatican and the USCCB do not mention the effect that measures to combat “climate change” will have on these “preferential” poor and vulnerable.
The methods of combating “climate change” all come down to this: Consume less. This can only be done by stymying economies or contracepting and aborting significant portions of humanity, or both. Either way, less will be consumed. Either way, it means death to humanity– either partial death to all through a crippled economy and vastly lower living standards, or absolute physical death to those specific individuals who will be contracepted, aborted and euthanized in order to achieve population “control.”
The measures proposed to implement the “salvation of the planet” are so extreme as to seem the stuff of dark fiction, as if they could not possibly be taken seriously. The proponents are, however, quite serious– quite deadly serious. An example from Crisis Magazine will illustrate: The article of 23 March 2012 by Jeffery Clark, entitled Remaking Man to Save the Planet, relates the quite serious proposal by S. Matthew Liao, (a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University) that promotes genetic engineering and other ‘biomedical modifications’ of body function for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Jeffery Clark goes on to observe, “That’s obviously crazy, but it illustrates the absurd lengths to which eco-fanatics will go in the quixotic quest to fix the weather.” This Huxley-esque image is not even close to the most extreme, but only one in a plethora of the kaleidoscope of nightmares poised for implementation.
Paul Joseph Watson reports, (prisonplanet.com, 3 April 2012) that Oregon University professor of sociology Kari Norgaard asserts “that skeptics of man-made climate change should be ‘treated’ for some kind of psychological disease…” Furthermore, “Finnish environmentalist Pentt Linkola publicly called for climate change deniers to be ‘re-educated’ in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted…” There’s more: Martin Kreiggeist, another Finnish environmentalist writer, “hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags… as ‘a solution,’ … Kreitggeist wants fellow eco-facists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.” James Lovelock, (the creator of the Gaia hypothesis) has said that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet…” Author Keith Farnish calls for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin, advocated (in 2006, in a speech to the Texas Academy of Science) “the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus.” These examples are not even close to exhaustive.
What ultimately drives this passion for inflicting death on humanity, whether by economic sabotage or selective murder? What has prompted (and maintains) the shift from reverence for the Creator to idolatry for the creation; (all of creation, that is, except for humanity, for the believers’ own selves)? The proponents of this extremism are in the grasp of what Pope John Paul II named the Culture of Death, and indeed, that is exactly what it is. It is a tragedy that the Church is in alliance with those who promote the very opposite of its most vehement and foundational teachings. That the USCCB, through its bloated, leftist-indoctrinated staffing, is among the most devout “climate change” believers is, sadly, not in question.
In his 2009 Statement for Respect Life Sunday, Cardinal Justin Regali said that the Church should not advocate for the typical population control (read “reduction”) methods but should stick to economic sabotage only. This is from a website called “Catholic Climate Covenant,” which claims “Care for Creation. Care for the Poor.” The same site promotes the adoption of what is called the “St. Francis Pledge”: to wit:
“Pray and reflect on the duty to care for God’s creation and protect the poor and vulnerable.
Learn about and educate others on the causes and moral dimensions of climate change.
Assess how we– as individuals and in our families, parishes and other affiliations– contribute to climate change by our own energy use, consumption, waste, etc. [cf. "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa."]
Act to change our choices and behaviors to reduce the ways we contribute to climate change.
Advocate for Catholic principles and priorities in climate change discussions and decisions, especially as they impact those who are poor and vulnerable.”
This moral confusion can be traced, at least in part, to a notion that caring for the poor, for the environment ,for the common good, and other leftist causes generally, can qualify as “pro-life.” This is the same phony twisting promulgated in USCCB’s “Forming Consciences…” document a few years ago. It is a deliberate lying and misrepresentation for political ends and much of the Church hierarchy is complicit.
The Trojan Horse has come to us through history as a metaphor for the invasion of destruction into a society disguised as goodness and innocence and well-meaning.
As the Soviet Union was termed “red,” as Communist China is described as “red,” as “red” was so prominent in Nazi Germany, so thoroughly “red” is the environmentalist agenda. In our own time, care and concern for God’s creation, “saving the planet” (from humans, presumably), “sustainability,” and so forth, have entered our society as goodness, innocence and well-meaning. Hidden by their “green” exterior is the fact that their essence, their core, can be symbolized by the “red” of their tyrannical agenda.
Nowhere is it acknowledged that it is the proposed remedies of this “climate change” which will result in horror, primarily and first of all, visited upon the “poor and vulnerable.”
Nowhere is there an admission that the phenomenon is most likely non-existent and that the supposed “crisis” is fraudulent and imaginary.