Written by Kathy Thompson
One of the more concerning aspects of climate hysteria is its association with population control. Limiting family size or choosing not to have children at all is becoming more and more popular as a proposed solution to the contrived ‘problem’ of climate change. This line of thought is being pushed by several ideological groups; some are opportunists: they want abortion and use their green credentials to lobby for it. Others genuinely, albeit mistakenly, fear for the future and believe that the earth simply can’t sustain increased or even current population levels. Still others, it would seem, have had a small population as their end goal all along.
‘Climate change’ outranked Game of Thrones in google searches last month as children took to the streets in an effort to convince adults (such as their own parents) that they should feel guilty for trying to raise their families with the highest standard of living the world has ever known.
Modern climate gurus such as Al Gore and Bernie Sanders have resurrected the hackneyed ideas of the overpopulation mythologist, Paul Erlich, who is still alarming the populace after 50 years of wild claims about impending human extinction. Study after study is pointing to children as the cause of enormous environmental impact, with limiting their number an obvious action every person can take without too much inconvenience. In fact, that all fits in nicely with the 21st century family model: two parents working, slaves to materialism and a furbaby to satisfy those pesky maternal instincts.
New organisations have sprung up, some of which are operated by homosexuals who are dedicated to population caps and childless families. Gay men are starting to think twice about surrogacy – not on traditional moral grounds but based on the new environmental morality.
Given its commitment to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, it is not unreasonable to question whether the Vatican intends to hold the line on contraception and abortion. The Vatican’s visitor list offers no comfort in this regard, as population-control experts like Jeffrey Sachs and abortionists like Emma Bonino are held in high esteem by the Pope.
In light of all this, it was highly disturbing to hear about new appointments to the redesigned John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences in Rome, and to read comments by its new president. One appointee – his post is not yet confirmed – is Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, who is also a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Fr. Chiodi is well-known for using Amoris Laetitia to justify artificial contraception and active homosexual relationships. The priest has claimed, in direct opposition to the Church’s centuries-old teaching, that it can be an ‘act of responsibility’ for some couples to resort to using artificial birth control. And he has attempted to justify ‘stable’ homosexual relationships on the basis that these protect partners from a ‘humiliating’ promiscuous lifestyle.
The new president of the Institute, theologian Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, was reported in La Croix as wanting to allay fears that the integrity of Catholic doctrine could be compromised under the Institute’s reforms. He points to the retention of John Paul II’s course on the Theology of the Body as evidence of this, although there are reports that this course will not be offered.
Msgr. Sequeri believes that the 1960’s buzzword, aggiornamento, is necessary to lead Catholics from John Paul’s emphasis on marriage and sexuality as gifts from God towards Pope Francis’ focus on the multitude of circumstances in which modern Catholics find themselves. This journey, the Monsignor tells us, is genuine development of doctrine.
Msgr. Sequeri believes that there are “very different realities” for love these days on which the Church’s theology is “a little weak.” He reminds us that sexuality has a “dramatic … dimension that cannot be reduced to sin alone, but which is also the effect of the contradictions of life, of errors, of pressures weighing on the family and disintegrating it.”
In comments that echo those issuing from the Vatican of late, Msgr. Sequeri stated that the theology of the institutions of fatherhood, of motherhood and of ‘fraternity’ have not been developed enough by the Church and that it is “intellectual laziness”, “ideologization” and “Protestant” to fail in their investigation. And with what may be aimed at critics of Amoris Laetitia, he states that: “ … to claim to be an authority and judge the Magisterium and the Pope is like setting oneself up as a Magisterium: it is no longer Catholic theology.”
The article concludes with the following statement, which is probably meant to put to rest any fears that the Church’s teaching on sexual sins will be altered. But in fact, its ambiguity rings warning bells when read in the context of both the Vatican’s preoccupation with climate hysteria and comments by Fr. Chiodi mentioned above:
“The prohibition is the fundamental threshold of the moral attitude … For the Pope, that threshold is a necessary truth but it is not sufficient for the right exercise of marital sexuality and family relationships. What is at stake is a justice, as Jesus says, that is greater than that of the Pharisees, who were preoccupied with the letter of the law, not the spirit.”