Francis Effect: Cardinal Turkson says don’t breed like rabbits in order to save Mother Earth

Francis Effect: Cardinal Turkson says don’t breed like rabbits in order to save Mother Earth

[Echoing an earlier comment by FrankenPope]

Posted by Adfero on 12/09/2015 at


We will avoid editorializing on whether the Church has “never been against birth control” as this type of statement is simply a symptom of the horrific state of modern religious formation. Prelates and priests preach incorrect ideas, sadly, on a daily basis. They are not infallible — even on issues of faith and morals.

The primary issue is, once again, that Pope Francis led the way to this dangerous thinking, both in the insensitive and simpleminded way he lambasted large Catholic families (see here) and in his fixation on new religion called “climate change” (see here).

Cue Peter Cardinal Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and Francis’ lead on so-called climate issues, on why Catholics should shun accepting God’s will in order to save Mother Earth:

From the BBC:

COP21: Cardinal says birth control may offer climate ‘solution’

One of the Catholic Church’s most senior prelates has said that birth control could “offer a solution” to the impacts of climate change.

Cardinal Peter Turkson, the Pope’s leading adviser on climate issues, told the BBC that the Church had never been against natural family planning.

Speaking in Paris, the cardinal called for a strong agreement that would protect the most vulnerable nations.

He said climate change was a looming ecological disaster.

Cardinal Turkson is believed to have played a significant role in the drafting of “Laudato Si”, the Pope’s encyclical on climate change.

Mouths to feed

The Catholic Church has recently adopted a more active role on the issue, encouraging churchgoers to join global climate marches before the start of COP21. The Church has also increased its engagement with the UN climate negotiation process itself, here in Le Bourget.

In a wide-ranging interview with the BBC, Cardinal Turkson suggested that birth control could help alleviate some of the impacts of climate change, particularly the lack of food in a warmer world.

“This has been talked about, and the Holy Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to some form of birth control, because the church has never been against birth control and people spacing out births and all of that. So yes, it can offer a solution,” he said.

“Having more mouths to feed is a challenge for us to be productive also, which is one of the key issues being treated over here, the cultivation and production of food, and its distribution.

“So yes it engages us in food security management, so we ensure that everybody is fed and all of that. The amount of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still something we need to discover, yet the Holy Father has also called for a certain amount of control of birth.”

Cardinal Turkson was at pains to stress that artificial birth control methods such as the contraceptive pill were still beyond the pale as far as the Church was concerned.

“You don’t deal with one good with another evil: the Church wants people to be fed, so let’s do what the Church feels is not right? That is a kind of sophistry that the church would not go for,” he said.

The question of birth control has long been controversial within the Catholic Church.

The issue is especially controversial in relation to climate change. The global population of 7 billion people is expected to grow to 9.7bn by the middle of the century according to the UN. However, efforts to limit family size in developing countries have been criticised as a form of imperialism.

As well as reiterating the Church’s belief in natural methods of birth control, as a way of dealing with some impacts of climate change, Cardinal Turkson said a strong agreement at the Paris climate talks would be critically important in tackling the causes of the problem.

“For us, one thing must dominate. We need to look at the front line states and what they are going through now, and in the light of concern for what they are feeling now, to simply adopt a measure that can ensure the existence of all of us.

“Our profession of love for God must necessarily lead to our love for the handwork of God, for what God has made, so let’s have some love for creation and for the human beings.”

Get AQ Email Updates

6 comments on “Francis Effect: Cardinal Turkson says don’t breed like rabbits in order to save Mother Earth

  1. The effect of contraceptives on the environment

    Condoms: Not very biodegradable; if they were, they would not be doing their job as a contraceptive.

    The Pill: What Are The Environmental Impacts Of Hormonal Birth Control?

    By BRIAN CLOWES – The Wanderer – March 10, 2015

    (Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995.)

    Have you ever stopped for gas and, as you were pumping, watched a giant 18-wheel fuel tanker rumble up to refill the gas station’s tanks? These trucks are enormous, one-fourth as long as a football field, and each carries enough gasoline to fill a good-sized backyard swimming pool.
    Every year, women in the United States ingest enough powerful hormones in abortifacient methods of birth control to fill one of these tanker trucks — 3,375 gallons worth. Now picture a row of semi tanker trucks parked bumper to bumper and stretching three quarters of a mile. If they were all filled to the brim, they would represent the amount of powerful birth control hormones women have ingested since 1960 in the United States alone.
    We have discussed the serious physical side effects inflicted upon women by the Pill, the patch, injectables, implants, and hormone-loaded IUDs. But their side effects extend far beyond the boundaries of women’s bodies. Environmentalists tell us that our ecosystem depends upon an extremely delicate balance of a large number of factors, and that even the most apparently insignificant activities of man are enough to have major impacts upon it. Yet they are dead silent on the ecological effects of some of the most powerful chemicals on earth.
    In 2002, the United Kingdom’s Environmental Agency stated: “Estrogenic steroids — natural and synthetic hormones in sewage effluent — have been shown to be more potent than previously thought, with the synthetic steroid 17a ethinyl estradiol showing effects in fish at concentrations below 1 nanogram per liter.” In other words, a single drop of one of these steroids pollutes 70,000 gallons of water severely enough to cause significant health problems in fish. A single thimbleful would have major impacts on fish living in a lake 300 yards in diameter.
    This is because excreted birth control pill hormones are a pollutant, just like DDT or PCBs. Gord Miller, Ontario’s environmental commissioner, said: “If you were designing the perfect pollutant, it would probably look like a pill.”
    Estrogens which are excreted into the environment are classed as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) because they interfere with the endocrine systems of both humans and animals. Other EDCs, such as those that find their way into the environment from vehicle exhaust, paints, plastics, and adhesives, can be filtered out in waste water treatment plants, but estrogen-based EDCs cannot, and thus pose a greater threat.
    The top environmental agencies in the United States, Canada, and England have all found that exposure to unmetabolized birth control hormones has caused feminization of male fish, delayed reproduction in female fish, and has damaged the kidneys and livers of fish of both sexes. Studies have found that female fish outnumber male fish in streams by a ratio of ten to one in areas where there is a high incidence of birth control pill usage. Biologist John Wooding said about this finding: “It’s the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me.”
    One study in New Brunswick by the Canadian Rivers Institute found that entire species of fish were exterminated in a large lake because all of the male fish had become feminized. Study leader Dr. Karen Kidd said: “What we demonstrated is that estrogen can wipe out entire populations of small fish — a key food source for larger fish whose survival could in turn be threatened over the longer term.”
    These impacts are not limited to fish — they happen to large mammals as well. A study by the University of Aberdeen found that sheep that grazed on land fertilized with sewage sludge had a high rate of abnormalities in the testes, ovaries, uteri, brains, and thyroid and adrenal glands. These problems were attributed to the high levels of artificial hormones found in birth control pills that cannot be removed by waste water treatment processes.
    These environmental impacts have been suspected for more than two decades, yet environmentalists are completely silent on this issue. If there is the slightest theoretical chance bird eggs might be damaged or thinned by pesticides, their outcry is immediate and forceful (recall the outcry over DDT). But let the top environmental agencies from several nations definitively document the link between birth control pills and ecological damage, and all we hear from liberal groups is . . . silence.
    This is because the left holds “reproductive rights” above all other considerations — the right to life, free speech, and even our environment. As Betty Ball of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center said, asking people to stop polluting water with hormones “gets into the bedroom.” She said, “I’m not going there. This involves people’s personal lives, childbearing issues, sex lives, and personal choices.”
    And Curt Cunningham, water quality issues chairman for the Rocky Mountain Chapter of Sierra Club International, said that people “would not take kindly” to the suggestion of banning or restricting hormonal contraceptives. He added: “For many people it’s an economic necessity. It’s also a personal freedom issue.”
    In other words, left-wing activists consider their birth control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills to be so important that even the environment must take second place to “sexual freedom.” Such is the self-centered and hypocritical nature of the Culture of Death.
    The attempts by pro-lifers like Jill Stanek to sound an environmental alarm have been met with silence, denial, and accusations of hypocrisy. The left employs its usual tactic of suppressing the point so vigorously that anyone who brings it up will be so ruthlessly stigmatized that people will learn that it is unacceptable to bring up the issue in polite (liberal) company. Another such topic we must studiously avoid, it seems, is the spectacle of top global-warming alarmists zipping all over the world in their private jets.
    We also dare not mention the Birkenstock-wearing, fair-source, granola-munching, strictly vegan activists who protest genetically modified foods and hormonal beef additives — and then, at the same time every day, pop a powerful steroid pill.
    Although birth control hormones in the water are not as dangerous to human beings as they are to fish, we must note again that sewage and water treatment filtration cannot remove them from the water we drink. Studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada have shown that breast development in young girls has rapidly accelerated since the 1960s, probably due to the estrogens in drinking water. Now young girls are developing breasts as early as six or seven years of age, and spokesmen for the medical societies are, for the most part, silent.
    Marcia Herman-Giddens, adjunct professor at the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, said, “My fear is that medical groups could take the data and say, ‘This is normal. We don’t have to worry about it.’ My feeling is that it is not normal. It’s a response to an abnormal environment.”
    Dr. Michelle Bellingham of the University of Glasgow is among the growing number of scientists who believe that male fertility is declining because of the estrogens in our water supplies, leading to an increased use of IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies.
    Another study by the University of Pittsburgh Center for Environmental Oncology found that chemicals extracted from randomly sampled fish in the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers caused growth of estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cells cultured in a laboratory, 11 of which “produced very aggressive cancer growth.” One British study found that the incidence of prostate cancer in men is highest in areas where the use of oral contraceptives is the greatest. Several such studies are widely varied in their geographical locations and objectives and, as a whole, are not yet conclusive, but their results should concern conscientious scientists and sociologists.
    The University of Aberdeen scientists who performed the sheep study warned darkly: “If we do nothing, endocrine disruptors may not only impact human health but all the ecosystems including those on which we depend — if we compromise soil productivity and sustainability of our agricultural systems or cause imbalance in marine and freshwater ecosystems through damage to populations of top predators, ultimately, we threaten our own survival.”

    A Sentinel

    Virtually every environmentalist group and celebrity is caught up in the cause du jour of global warming. It would be ironic indeed if the end of the human race came about because of the widespread use of the birth control pill.
    “Fish are really a sentinel, just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago,” says Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute’s Center for Environmental Ecology. “We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use.”
    Liberals push for all kinds of compensation for damage to the environment, the best-known being carbon offsets. Perhaps if a heavy surcharge on the use of birth control pills were levied, people would begin to wake up.
    Don’t hold your breath.

  2. THE

    The Bishop of Rome
    He lives not at home
    I’m sorry
    I have to say

    He’s here and he’s there
    He’s up in the air
    Flying this
    And that way

    He gets on the phone
    Waits for dial tone
    To comfort a man
    In his sins

    But mothers of seven
    Who put faith in Heaven
    “Don’t breed like a rabbit”
    He grins

    And how the boys chuckle
    And how the girls laugh
    And gender-benders
    Can trust this man’s staff

    But only the mothers,
    The big family breed,
    Deserve condescension…
    Because they believe in the Creed!

  3. Hey, this isn’t new. It’s straight out of the CCC, so-called “responsible parenthood.” (That was from fake saint Wojtyla, BTW.) The Francis team is just ramping it up using the climate cult nonsense. They don’t want more Catholics. All those mouths to feed. All those kids to teach. All those folks looking for substance, bread instead of stones, fish instead of serpents. Their message is get lost, and don’t keep having kids.

    And we know who is having more kids. They teach their kids to decapitate stuffed animals while thinking about us. They dress them in C4, put a wrap on their head, and send them to blow up busses full of women and children. And Rome calls them peaceful. They will outnumber us this century. There might be no Rome left, and the only solace is that we won’t hear any more Turksons or Bergoglios talking about rabbits.

  4. Vatican cardinal: I shouldn’t have used the term ‘birth control’

    John-Henry Westen

    December 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – After sparking controversy during a BBC interview outside the UN climate change talks in Paris last week, Cardinal Peter Turkson is regretting use of the term “birth control” when what he meant was spacing of births or “responsible parenthood.” Speaking to Aleteia’s Diane Montagna, Cardinal Turkson said, “When I used the phrase ‘birth control,’ what I had in mind was the Church’s own traditional teaching about responsible parenthood. So wherever anyone reads ‘birth control’ in the BBC interview, they should understand it as meaning ‘responsible parenthood.’”

    During the BBC interview, Turkson, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said that “birth control” could “offer a solution” to the impacts of climate change. “This has been talked about,” he said, “and the Holy Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to some form of birth control, because the church has never been against birth control and people spacing out births and all of that. So yes, it can offer a solution.”

    Cardinal Turkson explained to Aleteia that the BBC reporter had used the expression “birth control” and he was responding in kind, but “my intention was to present the Church as not inimical or opposed to the idea of spacing births,” he said.

    Another controversial aspect of the BBC interview was the cardinal’s suggestion that Pope Francis himself had called for “control of birth.” Speaking of difficulties such as water and food shortages that are said to come from overpopulation and climate change, he added, “The amount of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still something we need to discover, yet the Holy Father has also called for a certain amount of control of birth.”

    The cardinal was referencing Pope Francis’ in-flight interview on the return from Manila where the pope urged “responsible parenthood,” and chastised a woman as irresponsible for having seven children by C-section. The pope said Catholics should not breed “like rabbits.”

    Addressing this point with Montagna, Cardinal Turkson called the pope’s use of the expression ‘breeding like rabbits’ “unfortunate”.

    Those “unfortunate” remarks of the pope received some of the most severe backlash from Catholics and resulted in Pope Francis’ first public walkback of his statement. In comments to the Italian bishops’ newspaper Avvenire shortly after the pope’s in-flight interview, Vatican Archbishop Giovanni Becciu said, “The Pope is truly sorry” that his remarks about large families “caused such disorientation.” Archbishop Becciu said the pope “absolutely did not want to disregard the beauty and the value of large families.”

    • Speaking of difficulties such as water and food shortages that are said to come from overpopulation and climate change, he added, “The amount of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still something we need to discover,

      Discover where? In the gospel of Malthus?

      Turkson should investigate continence. Continence of the mouth.

      The one good aspect here is that those who heed this message will produce fewer potential Turksons and Bergoglios.

Leave a Reply