Dear Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo,
I read your interview for the American website C-Fam with considerable dismay. You were asked to respond to the downpour of criticisms and questions directed at the Pontifical Academies for which you are Chancellor (Sciences and Social Sciences) after the conference on climate change and Sustainable Development held over two weeks ago. The bulk of the criticisms and questions concerned the presence of Jeffrey Sachs and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as speakers, both well-known neo-Malthusians and persons who even consider cutting the number of inhabitants on the earth a moral duty.
According to you anyone who denies or doubts the theory of Anthropogenic (caused by man) Global Warming is paid by the oil industry. In other words, according to you, the only reason why scientists and experts try to prove the inconsistency of this theory, is because of their own personal corruption.
Since I am one of them and author of several books and numerous articles on the "Environmentalist Lies," I feel personally offended by your slanderous words. I dare you to prove your claims publicly by bringing evidence of my ties to the oil industry, which goes beyond my usual visit to a distributor to fill my car up. It is one matter that ridiculous allegations are made by eco-activists who seek to impose ecological policies by discrediting anyone who goes against them, it is another matter that a Catholic bishop who presides over an important pontifical academy should speak so lightly.
Your words also offend hundreds of honest scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying phenomena that on the whole we still know very little about. Instead, you should begin to take seriously the idea that your ecologist "friends" are actually the oil industry's best allies. Just to cite one example, campaigns against nuclear power and the imposition of renewable energies (expensive and inefficient) are the best guarantee for profits derived from fossil fuels.
But, some of the claims you make cause even more bewilderment. For example, when you were asked if you knew that Sachs is publicly in favour of abortion, you answered, "there is not only the tragedy of abortion," but there are also many forms of modern slavery: human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, organ trafficking, which are all tied in. You explain: "The climate crisis causes poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery, forced migration and drug abuse, and all this can lead to abortion." So ultimately abortion, is caused by climate change and therefore it is those impoverished women who resort to it precisely because of the climate.
With all due respect, I have to say that out of the many idiocies I have read on climate in recent years, this one surpasses them all, and it would almost be funny if it were not so tragic. Fifty million abortions a year, a massacre that has no equal in the history of the world and that some - including your "friend" Sachs - claim is a fundamental human right. And you turn it into one of the consequences of climate change. Of course many crimes are committed in the world - but surely the root is original sin not climate change - but abortion is the worst of all, both for the size of the phenomenon and for its nature: the elimination of a living creature, when it is most vulnerable, the most helpless. It has been called an "Abominable Crime" by the Second Vatican Council and this is an expression that Pope Francis has also taken up. This does not diminish the gravity of other crimes against the person, but everything stems from here, the suppression of the child in the womb, not from climate change.
Then you say that it is due to the close dialogue that you had with Sachs and Ban, that there is no reference in the draft of Sustainable Development Goals to abortion or population control; instead it speaks of "family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights," formulas - according to you - that some governments "can interpret in line with Paul VI, in terms of responsible parenthood."
At this point, it is clear that you totally ignore the history of the UN international conferences and the origin of these formulas. Neither do you seem to have read anything on the Cairo Conference on Population and Development (1994), nor have you followed the recent and furious battles that are fought in every UN commission, including those in the European Union over "health and reproductive rights." So you are unaware that the concept of reproductive health was introduced precisely to spread contraception and abortion, by making it a basic part of health care programs. Clearly, you ignore that reproductive rights are linked to the self-determination of women in deciding what to do with the life in their womb.
You therefore ignore all this and much more, and it is almost unbelievable given the position you hold. But in this case your ignorance- if this is the reason- is not a mitigating factor, but an aggravating factor. Moreover, I would be grateful if you would indicate which governments interpret "reproductive health" in the sense of "responsible parenthood", so as to fill my knowledge gap.
There is another element in your answers worth reconsidering: you take for granted that poverty is caused by climate change and expect a solution to come from a global agreement on climate policies. But this is not the case: the vulnerability to extreme weather events - which has always happened - decreases with economic, health and sanitation improvements. If you impose policies which, under the guise of climate control, prevent development, it means keeping entire peoples in poverty and pressuring others to sink as well. It is no coincidence that reports by the WWF show that the countries with the best ecological balance are Cuba and North Korea.
In conclusion, I share a doubt: in a previous article I argued that unknowingly the Church had embarked on the road to encouraging birth control by chasing behind ecologist trends without realising that this is precisely the aim of the "Lords of climate." Serious as this is, I must say that reading your answers I am left with the atrocious doubt that the adherence to birth control policies isn't unconscious after all. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong.
Le lobby gay danno il via alla caccia alle streghe, prendendo di mira la Nuova BQ e la cronista Benedetta Frigerio. La colpa? Aver commentato l'indagine del National center for transgender equality sulle condizioni di vita dei trans. Così è partita la petizione-gogna all'ordine dei giornalisti per chiuderci la bocca.
L’articolo di Angelo Busetto ("Marta e Maria, lavorare oppure no?") ha provocato una nostra lettrice che ci ha inviato le sue osservazioni. E scrive: Gesù a casa mia? A me viene in mente mio marito che torna a casa stanco dal lavoro: non è forse accogliere Gesù?». Ecco la sua lettera.
Il primo giorno della settimana, Maria di Màgdala si recò al sepolcro di mattino, quando era ancora buio, e vide che la pietra era stata tolta dal sepolcro. Corse allora e andò da Simon Pietro e dall’altro discepolo, quello che Gesù amava, e disse loro: «Hanno portato via il Signore dal sepolcro e non sappiamo dove l’hanno posto!»
(Giovanni 20, 1-9)