The Vatican’s Anathema Hurled at Trump for Heresy against the Environmentalist Religion

The Vatican’s Anathema Hurled at Trump for Heresy against the Environmentalist Religion

by Christopher A. Ferrara
June 2, 2017

When President Trump announced yesterday (June 1) that “as of today, the U.S. will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord and the draconian and financial economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country,” he was merely announcing his refusal to advance a truly absurd treaty that could not bind the United States in the first place because it had never been ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution. Instead, Barack Obama had unlawfully attempted to employ an executive order to fasten the accord on the backs of the American people and American small and midsize businesses, hobbling the American economy in order to obtain a laughable hypothetical “0.2 degrees Celsius less warming over the rest of the century” through a massive, job-killing reduction in the production and use of fossil fuels. (The multinational giants loved the accord’s lucrative “carbon credit” trading framework and massive government subsidies for their energy technology Research & Development).

As the day of the President’s expected announcement approached, the Vatican seethed with a righteous indignation never seen regarding the worldwide mass murder of unborn children in their mothers’ wombs, including some 50 million innocent victims to date since the Supreme Court handed down the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

For example, as Crux reports, Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, who is “[o]ne of Pope Francis’s closest collaborators in the Vatican’s fight against climate change,” declared in advance that Trump’s abandonment of the Paris accord “would be a disaster for everyone” and “a slap in the face for the Vatican.” He attributed the anticipated decision to “the oil lobby,” calling it “an absurdity, motivated solely by the need to make money.”

According to Sorondo, “refusing to acknowledge that it is neither necessary nor indispensable to rely on carbon and oil ‘is like saying that the earth is not round’…” Of course, a Vatican bureaucrat has no competence whatever to declare to civil authorities that they are ignorant fools if they find that continued reliance on fossil fuels is necessary — the same fossil fuels on which the Vatican itself relies for its daily functioning. Indeed, Pope Bergoglio consumes vast quantities of fossil fuel when he jets around the world to lead useless spectacles — about 36,000 gallons for a ten-hour flight at the rate of five gallons per mile. Yet at the site of each spectacle he ludicrously drives up in a fuel-sipping Fiat after having consumed tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel to travel to the host country.

A few questions present themselves:

Question: Where is the Bergoglian Vatican’s fight against abortion as opposed to its “fight against climate change”?

Question: Why has the Bergoglian Vatican never condemned the Big Abortion lobby that agitates for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest “abortion provider,” as opposed to the American “oil lobby” that Sorondo finds so deplorable?

Question: Why has the Bergoglian Vatican never denounced the profit motive when it comes to the murder of innocent children in the womb as opposed to “the need to make money” on the part of companies that provide energy to millions of people so that they can lead their lives?

These questions would all appear to have the same answer: the Vatican now reserves its anathemas for transgressors against the environmentalist religion so presciently described by the late author Michael Crichton (of “Jurassic Park” fame) to the Commonwealth Club in 2003:

“Today one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, we must look at the beliefs.

“If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from the state of grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.

“We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the Church of the environment….”

In fact, the elements Crichton outlined are found in Pope Bergoglio’s Laudato si’, the first “green encyclical” in Church history. As its opening lines declare:

“This sister [earth] now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she ‘groans in travail’. (Rom 8:22)” (LS 2)

We see here the classic environmentalist personification of the earth, seriously depicted as “among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor.” We see also a key element of Bergoglianism: the twisting of Scripture for rhetorical purposes. Saint Paul does not teach in Romans that the earth “groans in travail” because of man’s abuse of natural resources. Rather, it is man who groans in travail, along with all other creatures, on account of Original Sin:

“For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us. For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope: Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope.” (Rom 8:18-24)

But in the environmentalist religion, Original Sin and the Fall of man are replaced by the Environmental Sin and the Fall of “the planet.” The eschatological groaning of man as he awaits the Redemption is replaced by the groaning of “sister earth” as she awaits salvation through the imposition of environmental regulations.

Meanwhile, the worldwide slaughter of the unborn, the march of militant homosexualism and transgenderism, and the tyranny of political correctness elicit nary a peep of protest from the leaders of the Catholic Church. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of the few prelates who still stand firm against the spirit of the age, has summarized our situation thus:

“[W]ithout the acceptance of the truth about original sin and sins in general, one cannot understand properly the redemption of the human race through the sacrifice of Christ at the Cross. If one eliminates the language of sin, one finally also eliminates the true redemption; and one then turns Christianity into a Humanism or into a Pelagianism. Then there is left only the self-redemption or a religion of a naturalistic moral ethic and pedagogy, or a new religion of ecology and of climate change.”

Such is the sickness that grips a Vatican and the generality of a Catholic hierarchy that no longer sees its mission as the salvation of souls. And such is the unparalleled crisis Our Lady predicted at Fatima.

Get AQ Email Updates

One comment on “The Vatican’s Anathema Hurled at Trump for Heresy against the Environmentalist Religion

  1. Scientific controversies which are debatable do not fall under the expertise of priests, bishops, or theologians. There is no binding Catholic doctrine or teaching on climate change or global warming theories. President Trump is also not a Catholic. The United States is not a Catholic country and many Catholics in the U.S. have not been catechized or educated to the point that they understand Catholic moral teachings which actually do fall under the proper expertise of priests, bishops, or theologians, if they have received a proper Catholic education and formation. The Bishop should address the valid areas of Catholic identity in Catholic education if he wishes compliance among the faithful on debatable controversies from a Catholic point of view. This was a problem before President Trump took the oath of office, yet we do not seem to recall the Bishop address the issue of Catholic identity in Catholic education then. Did he speak up when a pro-abortion president was honored at a Notre Dame commencement? That involved a moral controversy where actual Catholic teaching applied on grave matter relating to eternal salvation. Perhaps if priests, bishops, and theologians would address those topics, Catholics could find themselves in a better situation.

Leave a Reply