The ecologist delirium in the Catholic camp is reaching unimaginable heights. An impressive example of this is the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference.
Whole sectors of the Catholic world these days are obsessed with the idea of a coming eco-catastrophe. Convinced they are faithfully following Pope Francis’ guidelines, bishops, parish priests, leaders of movements and associations and newspaper editors are competing to see who can outdo the other in matters of ecology. The resulting hysteria is reaching heights of surrealism and tragicomedy. Those involved are also revealing their true tenets, which are as “hidden” as they are disturbing.
Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, amply displays this eco-delirium disconnected from reason. Examples abound.
The July 2 edition published a letter from Stefano Di Battista, a journalist specialized in climatology (click here). He politely but clearly disagreed with a June 20 article criticizing opinion-makers who oppose climate change alarmism. In fact, the June 20 article, signed by Massimo Calvi and Andrea Lavazza blindly supports the cause of Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenage leader who stages Friday school strikes to “save the planet.”
The two wrote a long article justifying her leaving school so that she might dedicate herself solely to the climate cause. Since Greta does not travel by plane due to its pollution, they explained how she would be forced to go by ship and train to the UN in September and a year-end climate conference in Santiago, Chile. Thus, “it will become impossible to guarantee her minimum attendance at school.” It appears that in practice, the world cannot live without Greta. She has now assumed a prophetess role in which her oracles are indispensable at all international assemblies that defend the planet.
Anyone who presents scientific arguments denying man-made climate change is labeled a cynic who “presents himself as a commentator” but is sold out to “consolidated economic interests” or “large pressure groups who risk derailing our commitment against climate change.”
These accusations were leveled at Stefano Di Battista both because he presents these arguments, and cites many scientists who have been studying climate-related phenomena for decades. These scholars are convinced that climate change is not connected to human activities. To give just a few examples, he cites Ian Clark, of the University of Ottawa, John R. Christy of the University of Alabama, Richard S. Lindzen at MIT in Boston. He also speaks about biased newspaper reports about glaciers, for example, that attribute to them the behavior of melting. He warns that reporters must be careful since these so-called climate emergencies may lead to the suspension of democratic freedoms “in the name of averting the apocalypse.”
Alas, this is already happening. This is not a mere side effect but exactly one of the goals of the eco-catastrophists.
Di Battista’s letter provided a good lesson, but the friendly duo, Calvi & Lavazza, could not fail to reply—perhaps to better highlight the difference between scientific arguments (Di Battista’s letter) and ideological clichés. In fact, the two favored Greta’s authority and role over that of the above-cited scientists!
They reply saying that perhaps there are some skeptical scientists. However, these cannot be compared to “the very long list” of scientists who are convinced “based on precise evidence” that human activities are changing the climate.
This rebuttal shows a twofold ignorance: first, there are not a few, but thousands of scientists who refute the anthropic global warming theory precisely “based on precise evidence.” The climate alarmists produce not evidence but mostly forecasts based on computerized climate models, all yet to be verified. These thousands of scientists include Nobel Prize winners and great experts that are excluded from the front pages of major newspapers. Avvenire, for example, ignored a recent petition promoted by dozens of Italian scientists (click here), thus helping to perpetuate a lie. Second, the two writers of Avvenire disregard the fact that science is not decided by a majority but the verification of theories.
The best is yet to come. Di Battista cites Danish journalist Jeppe Duva, who claims the talk about climate change has become a convenient pretext for politicians to avoid dealing with much more pressing issues such as pension cuts and the labor market.
The Avvenire writers reply is Manzonian:
“Duva, who are you?” they ask. They claim it will certainly not be Duva, “hitherto unknown to us, that will tell the truth about this subject.” In fact, the Italian scientists were undoubtedly unknown to them, as were the scientists Lindzen, Christy and Clark. They probably never heard of specialists Carlo Rubbia or Antonino Zichichi. They follow Greta, and that is enough.
However, they do know someone else. They challenge Jeppe Duva’s dubious authority with that of Philip Alston, author of an in-depth ‘historical’ report published in Avvenire denouncing the impending “climate apartheid” (click here). Alston is not just any journalist. Avvenire says he is the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Yet the Calvi & Lavazza duo forgot to check Alston’s background. He is only a lawyer specializing in international law and has no scientific much less climate-related expertise. Just as Avvenire, he is a simple repeater of UN buzzwords.
Here the outlandish part ends, and the disturbing one begins. On July 4, Avvenire published an article by Fr. Virginio Colmegna, an Ambrosian priest well known for his social commitment to charitable works and his obviously left-leaning political activism (click here). Father Colmegna supports a great idea of Avvenire called “Saturdays for the Future,” which copies the inevitable Greta’s “Fridays for the Future” program.
Saturdays will be dedicated to “eco-sustainable shopping.” Many slogans in Father Colmegna’s speech can be skipped to focus on this passage: “This is about overcoming anthropocentrism in order to revive the centrality of being guardians of Creation. Here the Christian tradition has to learn from other religious traditions and visions of the world with a more harmonious and integrated approach to ecology and the natural world.”
What is really at stake with the ecological debate is an apostasy from Catholicism. Fr. Colmegna and those of a certain Catholic current are not criticizing a deviant or degenerate form of anthropocentrism. Their target is the centrality of man’s role as such. They contest the idea of man, whom God placed at the top of Creation and who is responsible for Creation before God. Father Colmegna reference to “overcoming” this notion leads straight to the ideology of the Earth Charter, in which man is simply part of a “community of beings” together with plants and animals. Man’s role in this community translates into “causing the least possible annoyance.”
Christianity becomes the culprit because it causes anthropocentrism, which is destroying the earth. Christianity must learn how to live in harmony with nature from other religions. Which religions? Obviously from primitive pantheistic cultures, as can be seen by reading the working document for the Synod on the Amazon. The idea that these cultures allegedly were in harmony with nature is a big lie. It is as if Revelation did not deal with man’s relationship with Creation and as if there were no Catholic examples in history of the real way to care for Creation. For them, Catholicism has nothing to tell the world. It is just a string of mistakes with so much to learn from others. We only redeem ourselves with “ecological conversion” and by helping the poor and migrants.
As seen on La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana.