ROME, December 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews)
– A heated exchange regarding global warming and magisterial teaching
between a top Vatican official and various other presenters ended a
December 3 Acton Institute conference in Rome. Argentinean Bishop
Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a close advisor to Pope Francis and the
Chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences stressed that the pope’s declarations on the gravity of global warming as expressed in the encyclical Laudato Si’ are magisterial teaching equivalent to the teaching that abortion is sinful.
Father
Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press who obtained his
doctorate in theology under Joseph Ratzinger prior to his elevation to
the pontificate, told LifeSiteNews, “Neither the pope nor Bishop Sorondo
can speak on a matter of science with any binding authority, so to use
the word ‘magisterium’ in both cases is equivocal at best, and ignorant
in any case.” Fr. Fessio added, “To equate a papal position on abortion
with a position on global warming is worse than wrong; it is an
embarrassment for the Church.”
The conference, "In
Dialogue with Laudato Si': Can Free Markets Help Us Care for Our Common
Home?" was held at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross with
over 200 attendees including members of the media, professors, and
students of the Pontifical Universities.
The controversy was sparked when in his address Bishop Sorondo spoke of “global warming” saying that in Laudato
Si “for the first time in the Magisterium” Pope Francis “denounces the
scientifically identifiable causes of this evil, declaring that: ‘a
number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent
decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases released
mainly as a result of human activity.’” He repeated the point later,
saying, “faith and reason, philosophical knowledge and scientific
knowledge, are brought together for the first time in the pontifical
Magisterium in Laudato Si'."
These
points were contradicted in the presentation by Acton Institute founder
and President Father Robert Sirico who said it is “important to
underscore the distinction between the theological dimension of Laudato
si’ and its empirical, scientific, and economic claims.” He explained,
“The Church does not claim to speak with the same authority on matters
of economics and science… as it does when pronouncing on matters of
faith and morals.”
Quoting
the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine to support his point, Fr.
Sirico said: “Christ did not bequeath to the Church a mission in the
political, economic or social order; the purpose he assigned to her was a
religious one. . . . This means that the Church does not intervene in
technical questions with her social doctrine, nor does she propose or
establish systems or models of social organization. This is not part of
the mission entrusted to her by Christ” (CCSD 68).
Father Joseph
Fessio: “To equate a papal position on abortion with a position on
global warming is worse than wrong; it is an embarrassment for the
Church.”
When
asked in a question and answer period that concluded the conference
about the weight of the pope’s opinions regarding global warming in Laudato
Si’, Bishop Sorondo distinguished between infallible statements and
statements of the pope’s “Ordinary Magisterium.” The distinction is
important because ex-cathedra statements are in Catholic teaching
“infallible” or never in error and require absolute adherence by all
Catholics, while some of those in the “Ordinary Magisterium” could be in
error but nonetheless teachings to which Catholics should submit “in
mind and will.”
However, even asserting Pope Francis’ reflections on global warming in Laudato
Si’ are part of his Ordinary Magisterium would propose a grave
challenge to all those scientists who have asserted global warming is a
hoax.
Comparing
the Pope’s teaching on global warming to the Church’s teaching on
abortion, Bishop Sorondo said the “judgement must be considered
Magisterium – it is not an opinion.”
“It
is under Ordinary Magisterium,” he explained, “that abortion is a
grievous sin – this is Ordinary Magisterium because there is not the
revelation of it.” So there is an assumption of “moral doctrine,” he
continued, that even though the majority opinion is contrary, we accept
that “abortion is a grievous sin” is Magisterium.
This
led to a heated exchange with panel presenters at the conference,
especially journalist Riccardo Cascioli, who objected to the suggestion
that Catholics must submit to pronouncements on “scientific theories”
rather than “faith and morals.”
Sorondo
retorted by saying, “When the Pope has assumed this, it is Magisterium
of the Church whether you like it or not -- it is the Magisterium of the
Church just as abortion is a grievous sin – equal (it is the same)… it
is Magisterium of the Church... whether you like it or not.”
Pope Francis in Laudato
Si’, says, “The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions
or to replace politics,” and that he seeks to “encourage an honest and
open debate” (para 188). Nevertheless Bishop Sorondo seemed to oppose
the contestability of global warming theories.
When
Cascioli suggested Catholics could follow their consciences on the
theoretical scientific matters, Sorondo rejoined, “If you were a
scientist and had a serious (difference of) opinion,” then you could
follow your conscience, “but since you are a journalist it is better you
follow the opinion of the Pope!” Cascioli reminded the bishop that he
too was not a scientist, to which Sorondo replied, “But I am in the
Academy of Science of the Pope.”
When
Fr. Sirico suggested that there are other experts or scientists with
different opinions on the matter of global warming, Sorondo fired back,
“But don’t follow them, follow these. Just like in philosophy, there
are many philosophers.. But the Magisterium of the Church follows the
philosophy of the being, the person. There are many who say the person
does not exist – the Pope does not follow them.... I say it is
Magisterium.”
Fr.
Fessio was unabashed in his criticism. “Bishop Sorondo is unknown to
me, and – judging by this statement – eminently worthy of that
ignorance,” he commented. “The best I can say of his remarks is that
they seem to have been unprepared.”
Translations from Italian were done by Maria Dalgarno.
Only 6 days left! Can you donate just $5 for PRO-LIFE?
Help us reach our critical Christmas campaign goal today,
and help us reach 60 MILLION people with the pro-life and pro-family
message in 2016!
Share this article
Advertisement
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
December 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews)
– One of the most influential evangelical Christian leaders in the
United States says the sexual revolution began with the widespread
availability of birth control. Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, made the remarks Saturday on David Wheaton's "The Christian Worldview" radio show.
“We are clearly at a very important turning point, but you have to go
back to the early twentieth century when sexual revolutionaries largely
funded an effort to separate sex and procreation, and that was birth
control," Dr. Mohler said.
"Most Christians seem to think today that birth control was just
something that came along as something of a scientific or medical
development," Mohler said. "They fail to see that it was driven by moral
revolutionaries who knew that you couldn’t have a moral revolution, you
especially couldn’t have a sexual revolution, unless you could separate
sex and babies.”
In recent years, evangelical Christians and observers in general have
taught the harms inflicted by birth control - from the potential
abortifacient properties of some forms of contraception to the way it
has unleashed promiscuity and inhibited true intimacy. Author Mary
Eberstadt, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told LifeSiteNews that when she wrote her 2012 book on contemporary sexual mores and their consequences, Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution, "I was just blown away by" the accuracy of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae.
She said the subsequent rise of commitment-free sex destroyed
marriages, spread diseases, and led to the nation's skyrocketing rate of
illegitimate births.
Dr. Mohler, who released the new book We Cannot be Silent in October, said the second major development that undermined the family was the no-fault divorce "revolution."
In the six year period between 1977 and 1983, 39 states passed laws
allowing either party to end a marriage for any reason, or no reason.
"That was massive," he said. "Evangelical Christians just didn't recognize it for what it was."
"You can't have anything like same-sex 'marriage' until you redefine marriage, eliminating it as a lifelong covenant," he said.
Degrading marriage led to a "massive spike in cohabitation among heterosexuals."
“One kind of sexual misbehavior leads to the rationalization of another," he said. "Thus, we couldn’t have the Obergefell
decision that came this June, we couldn’t have the legalization of
same-sex 'marriage,' if there hadn’t been a lot of sexual revolution
before we got there.”
Dr. Mohler went on to answer a question he is frequently asked:
Whether faithful Christians should attend the same-sex "wedding"
ceremony of a friend or relative.
"Absolutely not, because to participate in a same-sex 'wedding' in any way is uniquely to give an affirmation of it," he said.
While he encouraged faithful Christians to "establish a relationship"
with homosexuals in order "to share the Gospel," he said that "going to
a [same-sex] 'wedding' is the one thing we can’t do.”
