Is Climate Change a man-made phenomenon
9 Things You Need To Know that Climate Change is a Hoax, The “Daily Wire”
Oct 7, 2016
With Hurricane Matthew wreaking havoc, the Left is predictably seizing the storm as a means of promoting their radical global warming agenda. Climate change has not been a major theme this election cycle, but Hillary Clinton is now trying to turn it into one, with the help of global warming guru Al Gore. Unfortunately for the climate change alarmists, despite all the celebrity endorsements and high-minded rhetoric, the facts keep getting in the way. Here are nine things you need to know about the climate change hoax.
1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.
One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the “father” or “grandfather” of the climate change myth, as it was his “Model Zero” that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying “to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming,” according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the “background data on which their findings and temperature records were based,” even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear “any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.”
2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails. The new round of leaked emails at the time provided more teeth to the revelations of 2009. Here are a couple of egregious emails from Jones found, via Forbes:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
An email written by Mann showed that he tried to get “an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” a climate skeptic scientist named Steven McIntyre.
3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. The Washington Times reported in 2009: “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”
Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,” reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.
A 2015 Washington Times editorial also highlighted another example of NASA cooking the books:
Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.
4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that “2014 was the warmest year on record” and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it’s clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.
5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. As The Daily Caller highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the “the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific” that “occur on average every two to seven years,” according to NOAA – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere.
6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It’s likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.
7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the “average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade,” according to Paul Homewood. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models.
8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry. National Review reports:
Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.
Mann, one of the scientists mentioned earlier for his role in the Climategate scandal, received nearly $6 million in grants from the federal government. The sources of funding for scientists like Hansen are unknown, the federal government has been resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to reveal them.
9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change. Not just because of the aforementioned reasons, but because as Marco Morano points out at Climate Depot, “The data show for the last 10 years we have had an unusual drought of landfalling major hurricanes (Category 3 and higher) on the continental U.S.”
“That’s right, no major hurricanes have made landfall for over a decade,” Morano continued. “This is the longest such drought on record.”
Here are seven more things you need to know about global warming.
Sep 14, 2016
1. A few decades ago the media and many in the scientific community were in hysterics over global cooling. Newsbusters has a roundup of the various news outlets that promoted the global cooling hysterics from 1970:
“Scientists See Ice Age in the Future,” Washington Post, January 11
“Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself?”, Los Angeles Times, January 15
“Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports,” St. Petersburg Times, March 4
“Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century,” Boston Globe, April 16
“Pollution called Ice Age Threat,” St. Petersburg Times, June 26
“U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic,” New York Times, July 18
“Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age,” Sydney Morning Herald, October 19
An article from Newsweek in 1975 cited the “almost unanimous” consensus among meteorologists that global cooling “will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” The article even cites a report from the National Academy of Sciences at the time warning: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale.”
2. There is no consensus that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that requires “urgent” action. One of the most common talking points used by global warming alarmists is that 97 percent of scientists agree that it’s man-made and unless action is taken, armageddon will ensue. This is patently false, as Joseph Bast and Dr. Roy Spencer explain in The Wall Street Journal, this number comes from three sources and they’re all riddled with errors
• In 2009, a University of Illinois student conducted a two-question survey for her master’s thesis that asked respondents if “global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.” Skeptics and proponents typically answer yes to both questions, so unsurprisingly 97 percent said yes. Additionally, only 79 scientists responded to the survey.
• A student at Stanford found in 2010 that 97 percent or 98 percent of “the most prolific climate change writers” believed that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” No mention on how serious the problem was, and he only found the views of 200 researchers when the number of climate change researchers are in the “thousands.”
• La Jolla, Calif.determined in 2013 that 97 percent of “abstracts of peer-reviewed papers” believed that “human activity is responsible for some warming,” but a more exhaustive study of Cook’s work determined that only 0.3 percent of the 11,944 papers reviewed by Cook concluded that “human activity is causing most of the current warming.”
There are also plenty of scientists, meteorologists and researchers who don’t think human activity will result in overheating the planet:
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
There is no “consensus” that there’s man-made global warming that will cause an ensuing catastrophe.
3. Some global warming alarmist scientists weren’t able to get the results they wanted, so they tampered with the data. For instance, there was the infamous scandal known as “Climate-Gate” where leaked emails showed that a cabal of world-renowned scientists discussed hiding the lack of warming because it wasn’t the outcome they wanted, as documented here and here. Additionally, NASA appeared to have cooked the books as well; in 2007 they found that 1934 was the hottest year in its record instead of 1998, so they recalculated the data to make it seem like 1998 was actually the hottest year on record.
4. There has simply not been a lot of global warming in recent years. As The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro has written:
For example, The Economist reported in 2014, “Between 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s.” That forced the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to come up with a whole new way of evaluating its data to fight those results. It also forced global warming advocates to claim that the oceans somehow ate up all of the excess heat in the air. All of that led President Obama to claim to the world in Paris that 14 of the past 15 years have been the hottest on record. But when scientists said that 2014 was the hottest year on record, they admitted they were only 38% sure that was the case.
This trend continued in 2015, which was nowhere near the hottest year recorded by satellite, meaning that there has been an 18-year pause in global warming. Additionally, there has been a “trend since 1900 [that] is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century,” which is statistically insignificant, according to Christopher Monckton.
5. The sea levels are not rising by record levels, and there has not been an increase in extreme weather events. Here are the relevant facts for each, as previously reported by The Daily Wire:
• For the past 50 years, the sea levels have gone up by a little more than one millimeter a year, which is normal. There is no evidence that they’re going to rise by faster levels in the future.
• There has been a net increase in ice growth in Antarctica.
• Data from NOAA shows that there has been a decrease of tornadoes, falling hurricanes, droughts, heat waves and bitter winters. There is also evidence that is no link between global warming and wildfires and extreme rainfall.
6. There is evidence to suggest that it is actually higher temperatures that result in higher levels of CO2. The videos below provide the evidence and explain why this occurs:
Note: See, Thomas Sowell’s book, Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals?
In fact, there is a graph in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth that shows exactly this, but it’s only shown for a short amount of time in the movie so the viewer doesn’t see the correlation.
7. Not only will the left’s “solutions” to global warming do little to actually stop warming, they would cause massive harm to the economy. As radio host and constitutional scholar Mark Levin has written in his book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, Dr. Niv Shariv at Hebrew University concluded: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50 percent increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton have all called for an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Shapiro explains just how devastating this would be:
In California, the average resident is responsible for 9.42 tons of carbon emissions each year. By 2050, that would have to drop to 1.88 tons. That’s about what the current residents of North Korea emit, according to Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute. Per capita GDP in that country is currently $1,800 per year. If we extend that model out to the entire United States, every resident would have to drop to below-Mexican standards of carbon usage, and likely to Mexico-standards of GDP (try $10,400 per year). It would apparently cost us $5 trillion by 2050 just to subsidize businesses to create more energy efficient solutions. And that doesn’t mean that the solutions are better than what we currently have.
The president has made these following statements.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump appeared to do an about-face on the issue of climate change, urging Americans to move away from fossil fuels and signaling that there may be some truth to global warming theories.
The Washington Examiner reported that he said that “there is still much that needs to be investigated” about climate change, calling for Americans to transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. In the past, he has called climate change a “hoax” created by the Chinese, but he also has said he supports local bans on fracking.
“Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels,”
He said, more pressing environmental needs must be addressed including cleaning up water, and reducing disease.
The New Pagans and the Church
by Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
A 1958 Lecture by Joseph Ratzinger
This lecture was delivered in 1958 by Joseph Ratzinger when he was a young priest assigned to youth ministry. He had been assigned to lecture to young people and hold religious instruction classes. The lecture was translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
According to religious statistics, old Europe is still a part of the earth that is almost completely Christian. But there is hardly another case in which everyone knows as well as they do here that the statistic is false: This so-called Christian Europe for almost four hundred years has become the birthplace of a new paganism, which is growing steadily in the heart of the Church, and threatens to undermine her from within. The outward shape of the modern Church is determined essentially by the fact that, in a totally new way, she has become the Church of pagans, and is constantly becoming even more so. She is no longer, as she once was, a Church composed of pagans who have become Christians, but a Church of pagans, who still call themselves Christians, but actually have become pagans. Paganism resides today in the Church herself, and precisely that is the characteristic of the Church of our day, and that of the new paganism, so that it is a matter of a paganism in the Church, and of a Church in whose heart paganism is living.
a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.
• dated, derogatory a non-Christian.
• an adherent of neopaganism.
1 a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.
2 a person who considers that environment, as opposed to heredity, has the primary influence on the development of a person or group.
• Neopaganism is a highly varied mixture of ancient and modern elements, in which nature worship (influenced by modern environmentalism) often plays a major role. Other influences include … magical and occult traditions, and radical feminist critiques of Christianity.
Let’s get this straight: Concern about Pope Francis is not rooted in dissent, but in dismay.
By Dr. Jeff Mirus (bio – articles – email) | Mar 17, 2017
One wonders where Pope Francis finds the people who provide articles to L’Osservatore Romano which attack those who raise questions about his leadership. The latest is Father Salvador Pié-Ninot, who has criticized what he calls “dissent in the form of public criticism” of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Of course, I do not know that the Pope actively recruited Fr. Pié-Ninot. As evidenced by the broadside released by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, there are plenty of churchmen who are happy to preach tradition and orthodoxy when those who can promote them are traditional and orthodox, and to condemn those who value tradition and orthodoxy when those who can promote them are not.
This is nothing new, though I freely admit the uncertainty of assigning motives in particular cases. What I really do know, however, is that the arguments made by Fr. Pié-Ninot completely misrepresent the nature of the concerns of the faithful in this matter. Since Fr. Pié-Ninot is a theologian, one has little choice but to surmise that such misrepresentation is either deliberate or unwittingly driven by ideology—even if we grant that this is only a reasonable assumption, not a known fact.
I say this because Fr. Pié-Ninot’s criticism is based on the claim that some Catholics are guilty of “dissent in the form of public criticism”. But there are two glaring errors in this claim. First, criticism is not dissent unless it takes the form of denying the truth of something the Church has taught. Second—and this is the main point—as a general rule those who have criticized the Pope’s approach to divorce, remarriage and Communion have not denied the truth of anything Pope Francis has officially taught.
I regret that, even in some of our own commentary, we have used a kind of shorthand, talking about the controversy over Amoris Laetitia. But the controversy which is shaking the Church at present is not over what Amoris Laetitia actually says but how it is to be interpreted in practice. The questions arise precisely because Pope Francis himself has encouraged bishops and pastors to address these marriage questions in ways that (a) are forbidden in Canon Law; (b) violate both Catholic tradition and the clear magisterial teaching of Pope John Paul II; and (c) are not, in fact, taught in Amoris Laetitia.
The only problem which reasonable critics have discerned (to use one of Pope Francis’ favorite words) in Amoris Laetitia is an unfortunate (and perhaps tendentious) lack of clarity. This affects two particular issues:
In section 8 of the document, Pope Francis repeats Pope John Paul II’s conclusion that gradualism in moral theology can be used to describe the subjective stages of moral growth but can never be understood as “gradualism of the law”. Though Francis does not say so, gradualism of the law would mean that different moral teachings apply to persons at different stages of moral growth: What is sinful for a saint will not be deemed sinful for a person who is less advanced spiritually. This, of course, would be nonsense. Sinful behaviors are objectively wrong. Only degrees of personal guilt can vary.
Unfortunately, instead of clarifying this point, Pope Francis continues with a discussion that can be interpreted to lapse directly into what he has just denied, namely gradualism of the law. He suggests (but does not clearly teach) that it is possible to recognize that a sinner may be doing the best he can even though he has chosen to persist in his sin (as opposed to repenting of it but sometimes falling again). This leads to (unstated) speculation about whether the person should be judged to be actually sinning. The Pope suggests (but does not clearly teach) the idea that such a person may be pursuing a lesser good that simply falls short of the ideal. Insofar as this text can be taken to undermine the Church’s confidence in the liberating grace available through Christ, the discussion would be construed as drifting tacitly into gradualism of the law.
Admission to Communion:
On the question of changing the traditional Catholic teaching and discipline concerning the reception of the Eucharist, the text of Amoris Laetitia does not directly address it. Rather it offers two uncertain hints. First, in #300, the text states that since the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases, “the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.” Footnote 336, attached to this sentence, is not much clearer: “This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline…”.
Second, in #305, the text reads: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” But there is no clarification of what this might mean in marriage cases, and once again, footnote 351 (attached to this sentence), is not much clearer: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.” The note then reminds readers of certain aspects of Penance and Eucharist, without specifying how and when they are to be used. Yet the use of both has been expressed clearly and consistently in the past, encouraging Penance in these cases, and prohibiting Communion.
It is impossible to pretend (as some ecclesiastics have done) that there is no sincere confusion. As a matter of public record, the text of Amoris Laetitia as it affects these two issues has meant different things even to different bishops and cardinals. Some bishops (and episcopal conferences) have decided the text does not change the existing sacramental discipline of the Eucharist, especially since Canon Law has not been changed. Indeed, this is also the conclusion of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Other bishops (and episcopal conferences) have decided the text intends to permit reception of Communion in some (or a few) cases by those who are divorced and remarried without benefit of an annulment, after a period of discernment with the help of their pastors.
Still other bishops have decided that reception of Communion for those in every sort of irregular marital situation is now left to the persons in question, who are to decide for themselves if they feel comfortable enough with their situation to receive the Eucharist. As far as we know, Pope Francis has never even unofficially favored this third view, but neither has he unofficially favored the first. The only interpretation the Pope has favored in interviews, conversations and personal letters is the second. Meanwhile, a number of bishops and theologians have proposed examples of cases which could justify reception of Communion under the second interpretation, but they have not agreed with each other on which cases qualify.
In other words, there are widely varying and mutually inconsistent interpretations all across the board, and it is precisely this that faithful Catholics throughout the Church have complained about. In addition, it is precisely this confusion that the cardinals who submitted “dubia” to Pope Francis hoped to remedy. They used the traditional method of seeking clarification by presenting a number of precise questions that can only be answered with a clear “yes” or “no”. For their pains, Pope Francis has not only refused to clarify what he means, but he has belittled all those who have such questions, including the cardinals. He has called them names, and he has launched a campaign of public criticism and demotion of critics, along with both publication and promotion for those who are willing to champion the uncertainty, pretending that only bad Catholics are confused.
The point of all this is to demonstrate that Father Salvador Pié-Ninot has completely missed the point by characterizing Catholics with legitimate questions as dissenters. The truth is that none of those who are confused by the Pope’s overall behavior in this matter have accused him of error in his exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium (such as Amoris Laetitia). What has concerned them is the uncertainty of the text coupled with the Pope’s personal (non-magisterial) support of pastoral practices which, again, he has not officially taught. To review, these pastoral practices and the claims that justify them contradict the current Code of Canon Law, deviate from Catholic tradition, differ from the formally-taught conclusion on this very matter by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio (#84), and so have thrown the Church into conflict and confusion around the world.
It is critical to recognize that this is not a question of dissent. It is a request for the elimination of serious confusion which has been actively encouraged by the Pope. As I have stated several times before, Pope Francis is actively pursuing a pastoral and administrative program based on principles of faith and morals which the Holy Spirit appears to have prevented him from officially teaching. Under such circumstances, dissent does not enter into the issue at all. It is shamefully disingenuous to suggest that it does. Two things alone enter into this question: Dismay that this has come to pass in the Church, and deep concern for the care of souls.
• Posted by: dover beachcomber – Mar. 23, 2017 4:41 PM ET USA “The controversy which is shaking the Church at present is not over what Amoris Laetitia actually says but how it is to be interpreted in practice.” Change “Amoris Laetitia” to “the Second Vatican Council” and you have a fine summary of the predicament of the last 50 years.
• Posted by: Jeff Mirus – Mar. 22, 2017 10:12 AM ET USA bkmajer3729: You raise a good question, but once again we have a statement which the context protects from the necessity to understand it as an error in Faith. Paragrah 297 is about the human tendency to write people off. The emphasis is on “reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an ‘unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous’ mercy.” It is in this sense that the Pope writes, in the very next sentence, that “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” But he then goes on to say, “Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest.” In other words, there are questions of prudence here, including prudence of expression, but nothing that (considering the context) can be shown as intending to violate prior Catholic teaching.
Editor: Continue to pray to eliminate the confusion.
What Happened and What is Happening: Disposition of a Pope.
Your prayers are greatly needed for our Pope and the Church
“Silence implies consent.” St. Thomas More, OFS
“A Christian can never remain silent in the face of violence, poverty, hunger, corruption or abuse of power”. Pope Benedict XVI
Canon lawyers, theologians to hold conference on ‘deposing [a] pope’
Deposing the Pope Conference: Pope Francis’ exhortation Amoris Laetitia
PARIS, March 17, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) —
Canon lawyers, theologians, and scholars will be meeting in Paris in two weeks to discuss a topic that has never been the focus of a Catholic conference before: How to depose a heretical pope.
Titled Deposing the Pope: Theological Premises, Canonical Models, Constitutional Challenge, the conference seeks to explore the mechanisms that are built into the Catholic Church for dealing with a pope who openly teaches falsehood and even heresy.
Speaking at the conference will be University of Paris Professor Laurent Fonbaustier who published a 1200 page book last year on the topic that was titled The Deposition of the Heretical Pope.
The conference includes 15 speakers who will be giving a range of talks on the subject matter with titles such as “Conciliarism and the Deposition of a Pope Through the Prism of Gallicanism,” “The Downfall of the Pope: Between Renunciation and Deposition,” and “The Deposition of John XXII and Benedict XIII at Constance, 1415–1417.”
The group of 45 Catholic academics said the Pope’s exhortation presented “dangers to Catholic faith and morals” since it “contains a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals.”
The conference comes after four years of Francis at the helm of the Barque of Peter. During this time the Pope, and the people he has put into key positions, have steered the Church in a direction that would have been unthinkable to faithful Catholics under the two previous pontiffs of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
Francis’ ambiguous speeches and especially his papal writings have turned cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and lay-faithful against lay-faithful. Doctrinal confusion has resulted in pastoral guidelines being issued based on his writings that allow Holy Communion to be given to those living in adultery.
Last November Vaticanist Giuseppe Nardi reported that a 1975 theological study by the learned Brazilian layman Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira was making the rounds in the Vatican. The layman examined in his work titled The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope whether it is possible for a pope to be or become a heretic, and if so, what consequences would follow from this.
Reported Nardi: “Three-and-a-half years after the start of his pontificate, Pope Francis is reaching his limits. The impression, given by means of gestures and words, of a latent intention to change the doctrine of the Church must at some point either take on definite form or else it must collapse,” he wrote at that time.
“Francis finds himself cornered by means of the very atmosphere he himself is responsible for creating. It’s no longer about a spontaneous utterance on this or that, which remains improvised and non-binding. His pastoral work and his leadership skills, which demand a sense of responsibility and an exemplary character, are reaching their limits. This could cause Francis [‘s pontificate] to fail,” he added.
The conference comes three months after Cardinal Raymond Burke gave an interview in which he explained that if a pope were to “formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”
Burke said in the December 2016 interview that there is a process within the Church for dealing with such a situation, adding his hope that “we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon.”
Also in December American canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters addressed the question of what could be done if a pope were found to be heretical.
Peters writes that the “crucial question” from a canonist’s perspective is “who would determine whether a given pope has fallen into heresy” since Canon 1404 states that the “First See is judged by no one.”
He found in canonical tradition, however, the position that if a general council determined that a pope had committed heresy, by that very fact he will have effectually cut himself off from the true vine, thereby forfeiting his office.
Comments Peters: “…however remote is the possibility of a pope actually falling into heresy and however difficult it might be to determine whether a pope has so fallen, such a catastrophe, Deus vetet [God forbid], would result in the loss of papal office.”
The location for the upcoming conference is significant, reports Church Militant. It was in the 1300s the University of Paris explored the question of what could be done with the possibly heretical Pope John XXII, who denied the doctrine that the souls of the just are admitted to the beatific vision after death, a position he retracted on his deathbed.
Latest update: (1) Let’s get this straight
The Church and our Country—What has Happened—What is Happening
Pope Francis takes a “Wait and See” attitude
Pope Francis adopted a “wait and see” attitude toward President Donald Trump, in a interview with the Spanish daily El Pais.
“I don’t like to get ahead of myself, or to judge people prematurely,” the Pope said regarding Trump. “We will see how he acts, what he does, and then I will form an opinion.”
“Mexico City policy”
The president’s executive order reinstates the “Mexico City policy” that was first adopted by President Reagan, blocking the flow of taxpayer money to organizations that use the funds for abortions. The policy was rescinded by President Clinton, reinstated by President Bush, and rescinded again by President Obama—all by executive orders issued soon after they took office.
Trump’s memorandum reinstituting the policy directs top U.S. officials for the first time to extend the anti-abortion requirements “to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.”
In 1976, Congressman Henry Hyde introduced a provision which prohibits any funds from Medicaid being used to pay for abortions. In the last 40 years, the Hyde Amendment has been renewed annually and has saved more than two million lives!
This important legislation will make the Hyde Amendment permanent and will apply it across the federal government, not just to Medicaid. This will save even more innocent lives!
Defund Planned Parenthood
“It is deeply troubling to many Americans that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion network…receives more than half a billion taxpayer dollars per year,” said Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. “This concern has rightly grown with revelations about Planned Parenthood’s willingness to traffic in fetal tissue from abortions.”
Note: New exposé: no prenatal care at Planned Parenthood, January 24, 2017
Source: catholocculture.org and catholocculture.org/news/
Planned Parenthood officials frequently say that their clinics offer valuable prenatal care, a new undercover survey finds that most Planned Parenthood clinics turn away women who ask for that help.
Live Action, a pro-life group, recorded calls to dozens of Planned Parenthood clinics across the US. Of the 97 facilities contacted, only five offered any kind of prenatal help. In most cases, receptionists quickly told the caller that Planned Parenthood does not offer that sort of service.
“Planned Parenthood offers abortions, so they don’t offer prenatal care,” said a typical clinic staffer.
Note: Planned Parenthood coached staff to cover up child abuse, former employee discloses 1-18, 2017
A former Planned Parenthood employee has said that the organization trained its counselors to skirt laws requiring them to report the sexual abuse of young girls.
In 2011, an undercover investigation by the pro-life group Live Action found that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics made no effort to notify authorities when underage girls reported that they were sexually involved with older men. Following that episode, Planned Parenthood briefed employees on how to respond to such situations.
Now Ramona Trevino, who once worked for Planned Parenthood, reports that the briefings were not designed to help protect young women. Instead, she said, employees were instructed on how to identify investigators.
Report: Planned Parenthood didn’t report child sex trafficking to law enforcement as it claimed (Live Action)
Conscience Protection Act
3. What has happened to our political system and why there is a greater need to pray to God to reveal the truth for what is happening to our Country and our Church.
(This post and report will be updated because there are changes and revelations happening almost every day.)
2. Democrats trying to change Church teachings
Nothing new. By Phil Lawler (bio – articles – email) | Oct 12, 2016
“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good,” wrote John Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign. He was responding to a supporter who had suggested a campaign to bring change within the Catholic Church, to “demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship.”
A political campaign to change the teachings of the Church: is this unprecedented?
Unfortunately, no. In this country, the desire to change the Church in order to advance the liberal agenda was on display more than 50 years ago:
In July 1964, several liberal theologians received invitations to the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, for a discussion of how a Catholic politician should handle the abortion issue. Notice now that abortion was not a major political issue in 1964. Ostensibly the meeting had been called to provide advice for Robert Kennedy, who was running for a New York Senate seat. But a candidate was not likely to face questions about abortion in 1964; the Kennedy planners had the more distant future in mind.
From the Hyannisport meeting emerged the argument that a Catholic politician might be “personally” opposed to abortion, yet support its legalization: the flimsy argument that “pro-choice” Catholic politicians have so enthusiastically embraced. And it’s not a coincidence that one of the theologians who had attended the meeting helped form the pro-abortion front group, Catholics for Free Choice.
So it’s an old story, really. But the full truth about the Hyannisport meeting didn’t emerge until 2008, with the publication of my book The Faithful Departed (from which the quote above is taken). With Wikileaks the truth has come out faster.
1.Defunding Planned Parenthood
Before Obama left office, he pushed through a parting gift to Planned Parenthood. A rule that prevented states from having the ability to defund Planned Parenthood in their own states.
The House of Representatives then voted to overturn President Obama’s parting gift to Planned Parenthood. Feb 19 the House passed a resolution to undo Obama’s rule. The House of Representatives voted to overturn President Obama’s parting gift to Planned Parenthood.
Thanks to the leadership of pro-life Representative Diane Black and others, the House passed a resolution to undo Obama’s rule! Now the resolution goes on to the Senate, and then to the desk of our new pro-life president, Donald Trump.
The House and Senate must deliver a bill to President Trump’s desk that stops the flow of our tax dollars ($1.5 MILLION dollars a day) to Planned Parenthood.
1. Banned federal funds
The President has banned federal funds to provide and promote abortion.
Source: catholocculture.org and catholocculture.org/news/ January 27, 2017
President Donald Trump has massively expanded the ban on providing federal money to international groups that perform abortions, or provide abortion information, to all organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to permanently ban all taxpayer funding of abortion. Source: “The Hill”
2. Obama’s LGBT
Human Rights of LGBTI Persons February 17, 2017
The Trump administration has decided not to eliminate the position of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons, a position created by the Obama administration in 2015.
Executive Order 13672
USCCB rues Trump’s decision to retain Obama’s LGBT executive order, February 03, 2017
Note: The chairmen of two committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to leave in place a 2014 executive order on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore issued their statement a day before the president addressed the National Prayer Breakfast and pledged to protect religious liberty.
“The new administration’s decision not to rescind Executive Order 13672 is troubling and disappointing,” the prelates said. “The Executive Order is deeply flawed, and its many problems are outlined in our statement from 2014 … In seeking to remedy instances of discrimination, it creates new forms of discrimination against people of faith.”
Human Rights of LGBTI Persons February 17, 2017.
Note: Pope Francis strongly criticizes transgender ideology August 04, 2016
The Holy See Press Office has published the transcript of the meeting between Pope Francis and the bishops of Poland that took place during the Pope’s recent apostolic journey there.
During the conversation, which took place on July 27, Pope Francis strongly criticized the teaching of transgender ideology to children.
“In Europe, America, Latin America, Africa and some Asian countries we are seeing some real ideological colonizations,” he said. “And one of these, I’m going to say it outright, is gender.”
“Today, children—children!—are told at school that they can choose their sex,” he continued. “Why are they taught this? Because the books are supplied by the people and institutions that give you the money. These are the ideological colonizations backed also by countries that wield a great deal of influence. And this is terrible.”
Pope Francis added:
Speaking with Benedict XVI, who is well and lucid, he told me: “Holiness, this is the age of sin against the Creator!: He is intelligent! God created man and woman; God made the world like this, like this, like this, and we are doing the exact opposite.”
Note: A young girl who is unhappy as a girl surely does need sympathy, support, and loving care. But if she thinks of herself as a boy, she should not be encouraged in that delusion. A girl is a girl, and a boy is a boy, and neither medical procedures nor hormone injections can change that reality.
We must pray earnestly to change this teaching in the schools.
USCCB committee chairmen call on President Trump to protect religious liberty February 17, 2017
Four bishops who chair committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have called upon President Donald Trump to enact religious-liberty protections.
A draft executive order has been published in media outlets, but the order has not been signed.
“Over the last several years, to our great dismay, the federal government has eroded this fundamental right, our first and most cherished freedom,” stated Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, Charles Chaput, Archbishop William Lori, and Bishop Frank Dewane.
President Trump has pledged that his “administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty in our land.” We urge the fulfillment of this promise, including an end to regulations and other mandates by the federal government that force people of faith to make impossible choices…
It is indeed encouraging to hear that the President may be considering an Executive Order to implement strong protections for religious freedom across the federal government, in many of the areas where it has been eroded by the preceding Administration, such as health coverage, adoption, accreditation, tax exemption, and government grants and contracts. We ourselves, as well as those we shepherd and serve, would be most grateful if the President would take this positive step toward allowing all Americans to be able to practice their faith without severe penalties from the federal government.
A draft of the proposed executive order was circulating among political activists in Washington, prompting enthusiasm from religious leaders and criticism from secular liberals. The sweeping document would:
•Require all federal agencies to recognize that the free exercise of religion extends to all citizens, not only in houses of worship but in public conduct.
•Ensure that the federal government does not take action against organizations because of their stands on issues such as same-sex marriage or gender ideology.
•Instruct the relevant federal agencies to provide exemptions to the “Obamacare” mandate to all religious institutions that find the policies objectionable, and provide all citizens with health-care programs that do not subsidize abortion.
•Define religious organizations to include any groups founded on religious principles—not only churches and charitable groups.
•Order federal agencies to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of employees “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” and forbid any adverse action against federal employees or contractors for religious stands they might take outside the scope of their federal work.
Conscience Protection Act
USCCB urges senators to support Conscience Protection Act
The chairmen of two committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have called upon senators to pass the Conscience Protection Act of 2017 (S. 301), sponsored by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)
As of 3-15-2017 Conscience Protection Act has yet to pass the House.
Attorney-general nominee Sessions promises tough enforcement of pornography laws.
Catholic World News January 17, 2017
Senator Jeff Sessions, who has been nominated – [and who now holds the office of Attorney General] told a Senate confirmation hearing that he would “vigorously” enforce federal laws against pornography. Sessions said that pornography laws “should continue to be effectively and vigorously prosecuted in the cases that are appropriate.” He said that he would consider restoring a special task force within the Justice Department to prosecute crimes involving pornography.
We must pray earnestly for Senator Jeff Sessions to prosecute crimes involving pornography.
2. The Council of Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church has released a statement protesting policies and appointments of President Trump’s administration. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press)
The Council of Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, has called upon its more than 1 million members in 39 countries, including the United States, to do all they can to see that a host of decisions and actions by the Trump administration, described by the bishops as “clearly demonic acts,” “do not last.” The bishops are calling for concerted grass-roots action, including bringing pressure on Congress.
Those demonic acts are as stated in the Council of Bishops AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH Episcopal Statement January 31, 2017
Bishops issue the following statement in response to the views and actions of President Donald Trump since his inauguration on January 20, 2017.
The charges against Trump for demonic acts and spiritual wickedness,include:
1.Trump Administration’s denial of climate change, the order for expediting reviews and approvals for infrastructure projects.
2.In addition, support for the XL and Dakota pipelines, places profits above the importance of protecting the environment, and the health of citizens.
3.President Trump claimed during the campaign that he would build a wall along the Mexican border to halt illegal immigration,
We ask that every member of this denomination, and people who are committed to justice and righteousness, equality and truth, will join with us to thwart what are clearly demonic acts.
We must do more than talk and write, we must act. Again, the Apostle says that “we wrestle”, not just talk, with spiritual wickedness.