The following comes from a December 18 LifeSiteNews article by John-Henry Westen:
A heated exchange regarding global warming and magisterial teaching between a top Vatican official and various other presenters ended a December 3 Acton Institute conference in Rome.
Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a close advisor to Pope Francis and the Chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences stressed that the pope’s declarations on the gravity of global warming as expressed in the encyclical Laudato Si’ are magisterial teaching equivalent to the teaching that abortion is sinful.
Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press who obtained his doctorate in theology under Joseph Ratzinger prior to his elevation to the pontificate, told LifeSiteNews, “Neither the pope nor Bishop Sorondo can speak on a matter of science with any binding authority, so to use the word ‘magisterium’ in both cases is equivocal at best, and ignorant in any case.”
The conference, “In Dialogue with Laudato Si’: Can Free Markets Help Us Care for Our Common Home?” was held at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross with over 200 attendees including members of the media, professors, and students of the Pontifical Universities.
Comparing the Pope’s teaching on global warming to the Church’s teaching on abortion, Bishop Sorondo said the “judgement must be considered Magisterium – it is not an opinion.”
This led to a heated exchange with panel presenters at the conference, especially journalist Riccardo Cascioli, who objected to the suggestion that Catholics must submit to pronouncements on “scientific theories” rather than “faith and morals.”
When Cascioli suggested Catholics could follow their consciences on the theoretical scientific matters, Sorondo rejoined, “If you were a scientist and had a serious (difference of) opinion,” then you could follow your conscience, “but since you are a journalist it is better you follow the opinion of the Pope!”
When Acton Institute founder and President Father Robert Sirico suggested that there are other experts or scientists with different opinions on the matter of global warming, Sorondo fired back, “But don’t follow them, follow these. Just like in philosophy, there are many philosophers… But the Magisterium of the Church follows the philosophy of the being, the person. There are many who say the person does not exist – the Pope does not follow them…. I say it is Magisterium.”
Although the Church leadership accepted the teachings of Aristotle that the Earth was the center of the Universe (Perhaps it is – Spiritually) – it was Galileo who ‘proved’ that the Earth moved around the Sun.
Galileo had his own personality conflicts with numerous individuals, but that did not stop him from being Rong – when he said that the Sun was actually the center of the universe. Ahem.
Politics may fund scientific inquiry – but should not be allowed to dictate its results, no matter whose political feathers get ruffled.
Embarrassment 4 Who?
“Dr. Church loses final appeal at hospital. Board of Directors upholds physician’s expulsion for telling the truth about high-risk LGBT behavior to colleagues.
The medical profession in America is seriously compromised. Dr. Church releases statement to the public about the ordeal.
The cave-in at the major Boston Harvard-affiliated hospital is complete – notified Dr. Paul Church that they are upholding his expulsion from the hospital and that his medical privileges there are terminated.
His crime? As MassResistance has reported, Dr. Church, a urologist who is also on the Harvard Medical School faculty, voiced concerns to his…
As MassResistance has reported, Dr. Church, a urologist who is also on the Harvard Medical School faculty, voiced concerns to his colleagues about the hospital’s aggressive promotion of LGBT activities.
He pointed out the long list of serious medical risks — and also moral issues — associated with those behaviors.
The hospital never disputed the truth of Dr. Church’s statements. Nor did they claim that he ever discussed this with patients or treated them differently.
Instead, the hospital took extraordinary steps first to silence him and then to expel him on a ludicrous charge of making “offensive” remarks. Over months of hearings…
I’m hoping the good Cardinal’s understanding of English is at fault here. I teach science and religion, and the Magisterium cannot pronounce on matters beyond faith and morals. The Pope and the Cardinal could say: “You can’t dodge a valid scientific argument because you don’t like the consequences, because that would be dishonest, and willful dishonesty is a sin”. But they cannot pronounce on the validity of the scientific evidence involved in said argument. Even crazier is the Cardinal’s concession (?) that scientists can disagree, but non-scientists cannot. So I only get to object to the opinion of a non-expert if I’m an expert? Help me nurse, I seem to have misplaced my head!
No, he’s saying the Church is siding with the “experts” and we all have to follow the Church. The trouble, as we all know, is that it’s a scientific question, not a faith and morals question, so the Church arguably has no place in the discussion. However, in this matter, the Church itself and its spokesmen are in fact non-experts, and non-experts are not qualified to disagree with any final expert opinion on anything, except, in some realms, to examine the methodologies used to reach the opinion. And this, the Church doesn’t appear to have done either.
is it possible that the dictatorial caudillo tradition in argentina has tinged authority styles of argentinian clergy?peronismo had appeal in that it offered everyone a seat at the socialist dinner table but brooked no discussion about what was on the menu.
Popes are infallible only on subjects of faith and morals. Many scientists and other meteorologists have stated that global warming doesn’t exist. Pope Francis has sided with the liberals on this topic, which appears to be a political issue, rather than a scientific issue. Does anyone remember the Galileo fiasco?
It is wonderful that the laity are wise enough to know what our current prelates do not seem to know. I am pleased that you express truth here, and relegate magisterial teaching to faith and morals.
No one here “remembers” the Galileo fiasco.
No one has said that the Pope was speaking infallibly on climate change. It would be helpful to remember that. His magisterial teaching is not so much about whether climate change exists or not, but rather our role, given by the creator, as steward of creation. Thus, if we see we are harming the earth we are not accepting that role. That is the magisterial teaching. Not the existence or not of climate change.
Having said that…very very few scientists doubt climate change. That is the fiction of Faux News.
Actually, YFC, the fiction is the degree of consensus on the issue. The oft-quoted figure of over 90% of scientists in agreement re anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is from a literature study that is cited so far out of context as to be meaningless. There is no such thing as ‘settled science’ – only a non-scientist would use such a term. What makes science interesting is that there is always more to learn from nature! My own (non-quantitative) impression from informal discussion is that about half of my fellow geologists accept the validity of AGW, and about half think that computer models are useful but are not crystal balls and shouldn’t be confused with actual data. I admit that’s not a rigorous poll, but it sure isn’t…
Our Fellow Catholic feels a need to “spin” Laudato Si’s central mistake (“[LS]..is not so much about whether climate change exists or not, but rather our role, given by the Creator, as steward of creation.” On the contrary, the very cornerstone of LS (20-26) is laid, as it says, on “Pollution & Climate Change”.
PF blames “greenhouse gases” (23) for “warming”, causing a “vicious cycle” destroying drinking water (27-31), extinction of the planet’s biodiversity (32-42) and he alleges is the direct cause for the decline in the “quality of human life” (43-47)—not atheist socialism, which promises so much, and only embitters the human soul. The failed secular-atheist message of LS pivots precisely on the fraud of…
the fraud of climate-change, it only peripherally references stewardship.
But the most majestic fraud of LS, connected inevitably to the fraud of climate-change (or is it “global-warming?” Or is it Erlich’s “global-cooling”–go back and read old journals in the 70’s all Our Fellow Catholic Progressives were on board with that then, too) is the call for “a true world political authority” (n. 175). All prompted by P Francis’ advocacy of doomsdayism (he says so–read n. 161—the doomsday predictions “cannot be met with irony or disdain.” Really?
So, if this doesn’t convince anyone with an open mind, consider this: Laudato Si doesn’t mention Jesus Christ except in 6 short paragraphs (96-100, 235)? 90% of the encyclical has nothing to do with God, the Trinity, Jesus Christ or the Bl Virgin Mary (she does get a mention once at the end. Hoo-rah.).
So. Where your treasure lies, there will your heart also be (Mt. 6:21).
This is not a document on the Catholic Faith. It is a secular-atheist proposal for world political power.
Excellent posts Steve Phoenix and this merits a repeat!.. “So, if this doesn’t convince anyone with an open mind, consider this: Laudato Si doesn’t mention Jesus Christ except in 6 short paragraphs (96-100, 235)? 90% of the encyclical has nothing to do with God, the Trinity, Jesus Christ or the Bl Virgin Mary (she does get a mention once at the end. Hoo-rah.).
***So. Where your treasure lies, there will your heart also be (Mt. 6:21).*** This is not a document on the Catholic Faith. It is a secular-atheist proposal for world political power. ” Thank you, Steve Phoenix!
Also, Fellow True Believer Catholics, it really would be best to drop the claim that “very very few scientists doubt climate change.” The Global Warming (“Climate Change”) Petition Project (www.petitionproject.org) lists over 31000 scientists, many hundreds of whom, like Dr. Reid A.Bryson, the founder of modern climatology,are directly qualified in the field and unequivocally assert that the measurements are faked and the consequent theories (think “hockey-stick” Michael Mann) are entire frauds.
Perhaps in California, climate change is not evident. It is a different climate than others. The climate has warmed where I live. I think you will find that most people who live in other climates will say the same.
Steve – you misstate both me and the Pope. I said that the cornerstone of his MAGISTERIAL teaching is care for the planet. The Pope goes on to inform the reader of the scientific consensus which, if true, compel the believer to do something based on the magisterial part of the encycilcal. We all know his scientific opinions, regardless of how much of the encyclical covers them, are not matters of faith and morals, but stewardship of the earth is a magisterial teaching. Finally, Steve, in another post I completely debunked the “one world government” claim. Those words or words to that affect DO NOT APPEAR in the encyclical. You made that up.
If the Pope is wrong, so what?
If you are wrong- catastrophe.
Is it prudent to wait and see?
Our Fellow Catholic makes assertions without facts to support them—these are called opinions without basis.
Here is actually what Laudato Si says (n. 175) in calling for a “true world political authority”, and P Francis secular-atheist goal of achieving it:
Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. As Benedict XVI has affirmed in continuity with the social teaching of the Church: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would…
“… of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a TRUE WORLD POLITICAL AUTHORITY, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”.
And regardless of his trying to get “credibility” from BXVI (a rare moment for this pontiff) & JXXIII, they are ALL 3 wrong and out of their sphere of “MAGISTERIAL” teaching on faith and morals, except for the “MAGISTERIUM” (since he likes capitals) of Our Fellow Catholic.
Jesus IS ALWAYS the Cornerstone!
A poster named YFC types, ” I said that the *cornerstone* of his MAGISTERIAL teaching is care for the planet. ” = Thieves of the Truth, always make mistakes. You’ve now been caught red-handed… right in the act of admitting & exposing the ultimately doomed methodology of trying to achieve a “Your Fellow Comrade’s” agenda via planet worship.
“In the End My Immaculate Heart Will Triumph.”
She will crush the head of the serpent!
￼￼￼Jesus is the Cornerstone! “The Apostles, Not a Book, are the Foundation.
When the Son of God came, he came as a man. This means that God reveals himself in a human way, using human persons and human means (such as talking and writing, as well as gesture, memory, tradition, sacrament, and ritual) to communicate his life and teaching to us. Thus, the Word Made Flesh—Jesus Christ—is the cornerstone on which the Church is built and his apostles—not a book—are the foundation. Scripture, in fact, says exactly this:”
“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. ” – Ephesians 2:19–22
THere is only so much I can respond to Steve. By the criteria of the petition, the Pope DOES qualify as a “scientist”. In fact, by those criteria, the United States alone churns out 400,000 scientists a YEAR. So if you are going to show me a petition that does no verification of the credentials of the signatories, and only ASKS that the have a BS or equivalent in some field of science or engineering, doesn’t mean very much to me. Sorry. Science isnt about signature gathering. About your satellite “data” I’ve already debunked your satellite post earlier this year. Please see my prior post.
YFC conveniently overlooks that petition project.org has hundreds of highly qualified scientists with PhD’s in climatology, including Dr. Reid Bryson, the “founder”of climatology. Jorge Bergoglio only had high school courses in science. That is a joke. Worst of all, Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, no longer believes in global warming. You’re avoiding salient facts, and quote your own posts as though they have any validity. That is ludicrous.
Fellow, hardly any sane person doubts that climate change takes place, has taken place throughout recorded time, and will most likely always take place. It would help greatly if people would stop making unhelpful statements like “very few scientists doubt climate change”, What many scientists and people with common sense doubt is a) that climate change today is anything close to the dire threat to humanity it is made out to be, and b) what can and should be done to counter any such threat. There is much discussion and disagreement about that.
False. In the Pope’s encyclical “Laudato Si”, he specifically addresses “Climate Change”, and his personal political beliefs – a one world government with the power to make laws, police, and enforce.
This has nothing to do with Faith or Morals. In fact these personal beliefs violate the teaching of the Church.
Nor is there any agreement within the Scientific Community about – aka
global cooling, global warming, climate change.
Read your CCC’s for truth.
THere is so much that has been misstated and misquoted among the trifecta of David Steve Rodney.and even Joe.
Joe the Geologist is indeed on rocky ground when he uses a semantic argument to suggest that I proferred a precise degree of agreement in an effort to obscure the facts. Steve and Catherine predictably equate science with fraud and claim that they are the ones with an open mind (how ironic!!). Rodney, of course there are legitimate discussions about the exact time course of climate change and the possible solutions. The very fact that those discussions take place and are widely reported should tell you that there is no fraud going on, as Steve and Catherine want you to believe.
Oh, Believer YFC: you avoid the Global Petition Project (petitionproject.org) where over 31,000 scientists, including Dr. Reid Bryson (the founder of climatology) say there is no global warming. Those are facts. You avoid “Dr.” Michael Mann, whose “hockey-stick” graph predicted catastrophic global warming even now, by 2015—and who now admits there is no global-warming. That is a fact. You avoid that satellite data shows no global warming for over 18 yrs (cf above citation). That is a fact. And you produce no facts? Believe on, True Believer!
In fact satellite data from the last 18+ years — this is data mysteriously “unadjusted” by the all-knowing pro-climate-change theorists—shows no warming:
Please explain this specific fact, YFC. Even P Francis’ view is obsolete, since in n. 20-26, the very introductory core of Laudato Si, he references “doomsday” (his word, cf #161) predictions of catastrophic global-warming—Yet now the fraudulent theorists call it vaguely “climate-change”—a perfectly undefinable outcome. No: Fraud is the right word. Believe on, True Believer(s).
Remember folks YFC knows more about everything than you and I ever will. He speaks typical liberal talking points like the 97 percent of scientist agree on global warming. What he and the rest of the Left wants is control, over our property, more our money, and yes total control over our lives. These are very evil people we are dealing with, they are torn down every tradition and replaced with their perverted view of the world.
YFC writes..”there is no fraud going on,” = St. Augustine said, “Before the devil can destroy you…he must FIRST, *deceive* you!
A guilty conscience always projects it’s own hidden agenda. YFC introduced himself on this website as a homosexual living in a homosexual relationship for many years. YFC then branched out and exposed his multi-faceted agenda of undermining Church teaching. YFC does not really care about the topic of homosexuality either. He simply needs to use the global warming, homosexual agenda topic as a driving vehicle for undermining Church teaching by causing division.
Our Fellow Catholic’s level of precision can’t even get the people’s names right (“Joe the Geologist”)—do you mean Greg? A “trifecta” where he names 4 persons? The confusion gets worse: Fellow: “a semantic argument to suggest that I ‘proferred’ a precise degree of agreement in an effort to obscure the facts.”—???
Where are your facts, data, specifics? Are you going to quote yourself in another post as though you are a published author? God help us.
Elsewhere, YFC has claimed carbon increases in the atmosphere were catastrophic, as CO2 approaches 400 ppm. And yet throughout geological history carbon concentration in the atmosphere has regularly followed temperature increases on the earth (which therefore can’t be due to industrial gases)up to at least four or five times that concentration. So coding oneself as an authority as YFC does is fraught with peril.
Read a book “Eco – Tyranny”, by Brian Sussman and find out the facts. If you True Believers dare.
You’re so right, Sarah. And I find it embarrassing that the the leaders of our Church, the great pillars of wisdom, solicitous for our good, should be so easily duped into believing the hogwash being perpetrated as “consensus”, or “settled science”. Don’t know about you, but I feel ashamed.
” If he (Pope) speaks about the environment, the climate, the economy, immigrants, etc., he is working from information that may be correct, or mistaken, but [in these cases] he is speaking as Obama speaks, or another president, ” Cdl. Sarah explained.
” It doesn’t mean that what he says on the economy is dogma, something we need to follow. It’s an opinion.” – Cardinal Robert Sarah – Prefect for Congregation on Devine Worship.
MAC, thanks for this post, and the link.
Everyone should save this for future reference.
FAKE global cooling, global warming, and now climate change is not a matter of Faith or Morals.
This fake science is used to make some people rich,
control the general population,
and un-voluntarily distribute wealth of middle income taxpayers – all of which violate the Catholic Faith.
Leigh, this sounds like something you would read in Current Events newspaper. Overly generalized and not based on scientific fact or theory. Do you really believe that the climate is not changing? Do you really believe that the world is not getting warmer? Do you really believe that we don’t have a duty to help sustain our planet? Even if we don’t believe in Science, how can we not want to protect our planet? How does all this redistribute wealth? I don’t understand how you developed your opinion.
Any climate changes taking place are normal evolution, including but not limited to El Nino’s.
Bob One you are dishonest. I never said that I do not believe in proven science.
Yes, we have a duty to sustain our planet,
but not accord with the Pope’s climate change, and his one world government – which have zero to do with Faith and Morals.
Bob One, as for Leigh’s alleged “over-generalized” approach, how specific can you get in 750 characters? However, if you really want to know how bad the science is behind the laughably-termed “climate-change” (“c/c”) theory, you should read “Eco-Tyranny,” by Brian Sussman, a tour-de-force of facts and sources by a professional meteorologist deconstructing the lies and altered data behind the c/c movement. You could add to that the intellectual firepower of Michael Savage in his book “Government Zero”, cf. the chapter on “Zero Science” (Ch 9): you have a lot of explaining ahead of you, B.O.
Just as an example, Penn State prof Michael Mann’s theory of global-warming (“hockey-stick” graph), were it true, would already have seen the earth and its oceans in a state of world-wide increase of at least 2-4 deg F. In fact satellite data from the last 18+ years — this is data “unadjusted” by the all-knowing pro-climate-change theorists—shows no warming:
Please explain this specific fact, Bob One, since you assail Leigh for “over-generalizing.”
Bob One you believe what ever the liberal talks points dictate. How does this redistribute wealth,, through more taxes and regulation which cost the middle class that you on the Left despise. No Bob One we don’t have collective responsibility to “protect the planet” however we do have a responsibility to protect our personal liberty which is more and more be taken from us in the name of false science.
If someone does not believe that we have a responsibility to protect our earth, then s/he doesn’t believe in the teachings of the Church. Review the Catechism, review the Bible, review the letters from previous Popes. Review the logic!
It is interesting how personal views sometimes get conflated. The loss of the middle class hasn’t come about by taxes and regulation. It has come about by the huge redistribution of wealth to the very rich(1%?) by the conservative Congress. Moderates and Liberals have fought for the return of the middle class for years, but keep getting blocked by the Conservatives.
“Huge redistribution of wealth to the very rich by the conservative Congress”???? What?? Until 2014 both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. Democrats as “conservatives”—that’s an oxymoron.
Bob One, you worship the created, I worship the creator.
Really Bob One you don’t believe that high taxes hurt the middle class??? You want to revive the middle class break the back of the all consuming government slash the thieving bureaucracies into nothing, let people keep more of what they earn.. You wonderful Obama care is about collapse it will be joy watching it go down. .
” Sorondo rejoined, “If you were a scientist and had a serious (difference of) opinion,” then you could follow your conscience, “but since you are a journalist it is better you follow the opinion of the Pope!” ”
The Pope is not a Scientist either.
He has ZERO background in Climatology.
Unfortunately he surrounded himself with those who wish to dupe him, and make him look foolish.
Actually, the Pope taught science early in his career.
Do not deceive,YFC.
The Pope has a degree in Chemistry, not Climatology.
He personally has ZERO education in Climatology.
He needs to get back to following the example set by Jesus – and Save Souls. He does not belong in politics.
I’m glad that you admit that you were wrong when you said the Pope isn’t a scientist. A degree in Chemistry qualifies him to be a scientist, albeit an inactive one.
The POPE did Not get a DEGREE even in Chemistry.
He only had the equivalent of a Community College Education prior to entering the Seminary.
It is true that Pope Francis studied chemistry and worked as a chemist prior to entering the seminary. But Jorge Bergoglio never graduated from a university prior to entering the seminary.
The Pope has no clue about the field of CLIMATOLOGY either.
The hypocrisy of claiming Bergoglio’s high-school certificate as a chemical technician, courses taken sometime prior to 1958, when there were only 101 known elements in the periodic table, somehow qualifies him as a scientist—and then in the next phrase, the same Fellow Climate-Change Believer attempts to disqualify thousands of qualified scientists, many with Ph.D’s in the necessary fields related to climatology (after all, Michael Mann’s prior under grad and master’s degrees were in mathematics and statistics)—is intellectual hypocrisy parading on stilts.
Well neither do you PETE. Maybe you should run for Pope.
….the he, above all, should know better than to venture forth as he has done.
Oh come now, Our Fellow One, trying to qualify P. Francis as a “scientist” and therefore somehow more qualified to speak on “global warming” (or is it “climate-change”? Or “global-cooling”) is nonsense especially as you have tried to dismiss anyone else, even qualified scientists with Ph.D’s, unless they meet your alleged criteria of “climate-scientists”.
The extent of Jorge Bergoglio’s scientific education (if you can call it that) was a high-school certificate as a chemical technician at Buenos Aires’ Escuela Segundaria N. 27 Ipolito Yrigoyen, sometime prior to 1958. The highest degree he EVER achieved was a licentiate in philosophy (like an advanced master’s) in 1960. How dated is THAT education, that he should try…
… to “teach” the world and the Church about “climate-science” OR theology. His education is equivalent to a GED running Harvard—and that NEVER will happen, because even progressives believe in Ph.D’s running their own institutions.
Steve, your comments are extensive and present a counter to regularly accepted scientific theory. But the question is still, “so what”? Even if all of the “scientific studies” about climate change are incorrect, and we know they are not, does that mean that we should not be good stewards of our earth? Does it mean that it is ok to spew soot and smoke into the air? Does it mean that we should not try to lessen our damage to the planet? I think not.
Look at section 2402-6 in the Catechism to see that the teachings of the Pope are really just a restatement of our long time faith.
Bob One, I noticed that you claim other people “over-generalize”, & yet when I gave you a specific question based on specific facts, which is, “Why does satellite data for the last 18+ years, data which is the most accurate in objectively assessing earth temperatures, show no increase in warming?”, you changed the subject. Especially this issue matters when the “great predictors,” such as Dr. Michael Mann. said we would see serious warming already. He now doesn’t believe in global warming.
So this is the pseudo science of Simon Says, Sorondo-Sanchez says.
Steve, don’t challenge YFC on his “facts”. You see, he is NEVER wrong.
I wouldn’t want to overstate Bergoglio’s credentials as a scientist, however, his study is a bit more than a high school certificate, yet certainly below a PhD or perhaps even a masters’ degree. However he DID teach science, which is better than you can say for yourself: https://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/does-pope-francis-have-masters-degree-chemistry
However, we should take note, that he WOULD have qualified to sign that beknighted petition you have been passing around, claiming that scientists are opposed the idea of climate change. Except that he didn’t sign it, along with millions of his fellow scientists.
Excuse yyou, I have taught science at the secondary ed level (chemistry), so that further up ends your claims, and excuse you again, the pope’s education in science was prior to 1958, in fact, at the high-school level. Even P Francis’ Wikipedia page says so. Please educate yourself.
My response was to David, SP, not to you. I realize it is hard to figure that out the way that CC formats the response.
Congrats on your background in chemistry. But if you think Wikipedia is a good place to “educate oneself”, I think you are off base. Anybody can put anything on Wikipedia.
You do everything you can to degrade this Pope, and fellow posters here on CCD. Perhaps you need another kind of education yourself.
This is the year of mercy and the first Spiritual Work of Mercy “To instruct the ignorant”; it was a spiritual work of mercy to instruct Bishop Sorondo on his error. Thank you Fr. Sirico for this act of mercy to the wayward bishop.
Papal pronouncements are given at different levels: For faith and morals Apostolic constitutions, encyclicals, apostolic exhortations are used. The thoughts expressed in Laudato Si are not of that character. A Message or Letter from the Holy Father seems to be the appropriate medium for this type of message since it is not of the character of faith and morals with the same binding force.
Actually, fellow Argentine Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the ghostwriter of Laudato Si, is only a bishop (as of this date), not yet a cardinal nor archbishop, and one who took a hard-left turn for Hegelianism (the darling philosophy of Marxist-Leninism) in the late 90’s. By the year 2000, he was writing favorably on all kinds of extra-Catholic doctrine, such as globalism, feminism and is now a comfortable redistributionist-socialist.
It is not surprising that he would want to attach moral imperative to his socialist-atheist screed in Laudato Si. After all, Mt 24:11: “False teachers shall arise and shall deceive many.” He has certainly taken in the intellectually-outmatched pontiff (they have been friends going back years—to the…
..to the detriment of then-Card.Abp. Bergoglio..
If this is the kind of “advisers” the Pope is surrounded himself with, then no wonder . . . . . . .
Sorry, but Bishop Sanchez Sorondo is right. Pope Francisco devoted a long encyclical to the thesis that man causes Global Warning, and therefore this is now part of the magisterium (teaching) of the Church. I think Global Warning is a hoax perpetrated by Marxists/Freemasons to impose One World government and Malthusian population control, but Pope Francisco teaches differently.
Exclusive footage of Climatologist Sorondo summarizing the Acton Institute conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O8gTIr4lys
May I suggest at least two options in which the Vatican can save face over Bishop Tonto’s edict while remaining consistent in their Global Warminess:
One, they can declare that Sorondo was suffering from Heat Stroke. Two, they can choose to throw him under the bus, then drive the bus off the edge of the Flat Earth.
Only 36 percent of qualified geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in a peer-reviewed journal of the scientific field:
The survey was actually conducted by Global-Warming/Climate-Change True Believers, disappointed that nearly two-thirds of qualified scientists in the field are skeptical of claims of crisis due to anthropogenic-caused gases. Or activity. Or something. (Is it greenhouse gases, now, or is it mysterious undefinable “climate-change”? Or are we going to all freeze to death? What’s the new buzz-line to…
Father Sirico, founder of the Acton Institute, is to the theology of capitalism as Leonardo Boff was to liberation theology. Both are an embarrassment to the Church (and society as a whole) as Popes (including St, John Paul II) have condemned the excesses of capitalism (e.g. greed, exploitation of workers and resources, etc.) and socialism (e.g. loss of freedom, authoritarianism, etc.). The Acton Institute should be shut down!