Wednesday, June 17, 2015


Say it isn't so, but this is what Father Z is asking his readers to become: Cafeteria Catholics!---but can a faithful Catholic be such or only pretend to be Catholic in doing so? This is what Fr. Z posted today:

"The Italian was leaked and now there is an English version out.  There are some good moments in it.  There’s something for everyone.

However, it’s pretty hard on free markets.  I don’t care much for that discussion.
So, here’s an initial approach.

Perhaps we can pay as much attention to the sections on markets and environment, as the catholic Left pays to Humanae vitae.

We will pay as much attention to this as the libs pay to Summorum Pontificum."

Meanwhile,  Rachel Dolezal, with tears in her eyes, so this makes it especially poignant and terrific television, says in an interview:

Caitlyn Jenner’s story ‘resonated’ with me

In the interview, unlike Bruce Jenner, she says that she is bi-sexual. This will really get the gender ideology folks on her side, meaning the main stream press and media. Brilliant, no?

But Bruce Jenner said he never had a homosexual relationship as a man. But as a woman he is a lesbian. This makes for great reality TV no? And he sings all the way to the bank making the mutilation of his body and morality, not to mention his salvation, worth it all.  Sounds like those who mutilate the earth and cause global warming which will kill us all, the poor first, no? 

But now that Fr. Z has spoken, I believe if a Catholic can be a Cafeteria Catholic, then a man can become a woman and a white woman can become a black one and that global warming is at the heart of it all.

Would someone stop this hot earth (100 here in Macon today) and let me off? I feel like a star and want to join my sisters in the sky!


Mark said...

I have every reason to believe that the Holy Father's upcoming Encyclical will advance the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

I believe that the hype generated from liberal, conservative, traditional Catholic and secular factions — each faction promotes with glee or consternation the notion that the Encyclical is a "radical" document from a "radical" Pope — will prove false.

There are some exceptions to the above. In each above group, there are some folks who, based upon their having read the leaked draft, have stated that the Encyclical is a "balanced" and "sober" document.

However, the general hype from each faction, within and without the Church, is that the document is radical. Liberals promote that notion with glee.

Conversely, disgruntled conservatives and Traditionalists have either written off the Encyclical or exhort us to practice cafeteria Catholicism in regard to the Encyclical...accept this part...reject (or ignore) that part.

I would have hoped that people would have al least waited for the release of the Encyclical prior to their having rejected the section of or even the entire Encyclical.

In light of the tired, old liberals vs. conservatives/traditionalists war, imagine the massive dissensions that would flow should Rome begin to reform the broken Novus Ordo Mass.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Father, I think no doubt that Fr Z is simply realising the fact of the matter as stated here by Mons Gheradini (written well before the election of Pope Francis). I find it strange that you are not aware of this as I remember being taught something very similar about the infallibility of the Pope:

"Not every single word of the Pope, be it written or spoken, is Magisterium; and the same holds true for the ecumenical Councils, quite a few of which did not deal with dogma or did not deal with it exclusively: on occasion they even grafted dogma onto a context of internal diatribes and personal or faction quarrels, such as to render absurd any magisterial claim on their part within that context. An ecumenical Council of unquestioned dogmatic-Christological importance such as that of Chalcedon, that spent most of its time in a shameful struggle over personal preferences, prerogatives, depositions, rehabilitations, still makes a decidedly negative impression. Not in this is Chalcedon dogma. Likewise, the Pope's word is not dogmatic when he declares privately that, "Paul did not intend the Church as an organization, an institution, but as a living organism, where all work for one another and with one another, being united from Christ on." The exact opposite is true, and it is a known fact that the first institutional form was structured by Paul in a pyramidal shape, precisely to favour the living organism: the Apostle at the summit, then the episkopoi-presbyteroi, the hegoumenoi, the proistamenoi, the nouthetountes, the diakonoi: these are distinct functions and tasks, not precisely defined as yet, but the distinctions are already those of an institutionalized organism. Let it be quite clear that, even in this case, the christian attitude must be one of respect and, at least in principle, also of adhesion. If, however, adherence to a case such as the one set above is not possible for the conscience of the individual believer, this fact does not imply rebellion against the Pope or denial of his Magisterium; it only means that this is not Magisterium."

It is not cafeteria catholics at all that Fr Z is promoting but that Catholics, in conscience, where they differ with something that the Holy Father says they can do so without it being a rebellion against the Pope. Mons Gheradini's article is very enlightening.


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Jan, I'll post my comment to you from the other post again:

Jan there is nothing new in what you are saying, except it goes back the the spirit of Vatican II 1960's and 70's. I was taught in the seminary, especially with those confounded papal teachings and a Pope Paul VI who at the time was reneging on his earlier progressiveness, that Catholics, especially academic theologians, could for a loyal opposition. In fact the academics wanted to be a parallel magisterium to counteract the actual Magisterium when necessary.

I have no issue with people disagreeing with the imprimatur Pope Francis has or will place on certain theories concerning global warming and the devastation it will bring. He could be wrong on this. But I would have to write that or say that with some scholarly substance and I would say it in a polite way.

I would not, though, use any belief that I have that the pope has his science wrong as a crown of thorns to shoved on His Holiness Head or prepare a cross for his crucifixion.

There is something very nasty, ugly and not only anti-Catholic but unchristian with so-called trans-Catholics who denigrate in a open way the Vicar of Christ on earth. It is unseemly and signals the triumph of my 1970's progressive ideology concerning dissent. However, there is nothing loyal about it.

I've heard all this before and in a cogent way, but not from orthodox Catholics, but left-leaning ideologues. I hate seeing it now espoused by those who are using tradition as a weapon against Catholic teaching concerning obedience to the Magisterium and respectful assent to their teaching authority.

Finally, good and faithful Catholics will give the pope the benefit of the doubt even if they think he is wrong on this, that or the other that is not to be considered magisterial. We are on a very slippery slope when we decide that we can pick and choose and make ourselves into a magisterium in deciding what is and isn't magisterial.

Victor said...

So, to be a good Catholic you have to be a Republican, or at least believe in their market economics. I suppose a super good Catholic would be a member of the Tea Party.
In any case, the pope should keep out of politics, as the "catholic" Jeb Bush said yesterday, which he copied from Mr Obama who thinks Catholics have nothing to say about society to politicians or anyone else outside their houses of worship.
And for those who wonder, no, I would never vote for a Republican. Nor would I ever vote for a Democrat either.

Православный физик said...

Jan, you're absolutely right....hardly Cafeteria Catholicism. In matters of prudential judgment (how to take care of the earth is one of those) we can have a legitimate disagreement with the Pope and not have to worry about breaking unity with him. Elevating issues of prudential judgement to near dogmatic status (ala the USCCB and Immigration reform, and virtually every big government program that has come out from the government) will only have disasterous consequences.

Mark is right, we will not see deviating from Catholic teaching more than likely. But climate science is something that is still in debate, not necessarily that temperature changes, that's a given, but the causes of said changes....whether man contributes significantly is still up for debate.

But again, we need to wait until the official encyclical comes out. I will happily read it...but I am prepared with a red pen, my physics equations, and other things if needed to "assist"

Anonymous said...

Father, I beg to differ. I feel that there is an effort on the part of some sections of the Church to stifle legitimate commentary by saying, "If you speak out then you are not a faithful Catholic - that is wrong. I mean we had the Arian heresy in which even the Pope of the time was in error - are you seriously suggesting that Catholics who spoke out at the time were not faithful Catholics and should have kept their mouths shut including St Athanasius for one?


Anonymous said...

"The Holy Father has appointed Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Potsdam and director of the Institute for Climate Impact in Potsdam, Federal Republic of Germany, as ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences [sic].

Schellnhuber was chosen to be one among four speakers to talk at the roll-out of the Pope's global warming encyclical Thursday, and is said to have helped draft the encyclical.

He's a controversial appointee because, in addition to being a radical promoter of the theory of man-made climate change, he is an atheist and an advocate of population control. He once said the carrying capacity of the earth is less than one billion; considering the earth currently holds more than seven billion people, this would mean he favors the reduction of the vast majority of mankind.

He has made calls for an "Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter" and a "Global Council" comprised of members elected by everyone on earth. He has also suggested creation of a "Planetary Court ... a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution."

No need to comment on this, as it speaks for itself really.


Rood Screen said...

Sadly, Father Z's blog has lost it's zeal and focus over the past couple of years. Instructing laymen to keep tabs on which priests do and don't sign that problematic "Credo" protest letter, and censoring comments critical of his instruction, further lowered the standards of his once excellent blog. Now, Cardinal Sarah makes very hopeful statements about the future of the Roman Mass, and Fr. Z pays no attention, so focused as he is on the EF Mass, Republican politics and combat clerical clothing.

Those English-speaking Catholics who love the fullness of the Roman liturgical tradition would do well just to visit Southern Orders, Chant Cafe, and on rare occasions the New Liturgical Movement (although NLM increasingly limits itself to obscure liturgical matters).

Lefebvrian said...

If a liberal asks if you agree with this new encyclical (which isn't Magisterial much less infallible), ask if they agree with Mortaium Animos or any number of pre-Vatican II encyclicals, which are infallible in certain pronouncements. Who are the real cafeteria Catholics? The answer is and has always been plain.

Also, Rorate Caeli had a good point in their Twitter: if the pope wants to stop global warming, he should cause more Traditional Masses to be set up so people don't have to load their many, many kids into vans and drive for hours to get to Mass on Sunday.

Supertradmum said...

Father Z was joking....about picking and choosing. I am going to look up more on Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a person who sounds dangerous, very dangerous

Unknown said...

What Fr. Z has written seems fairly tongue-in-cheek...

Anonymous said...

Well, at least we have not degenerated into the chaos of the Episcopal Church, where a parish up here in Atlanta is planning a "celebration" service tomorrow if the Supreme Court OKs same-sex marriage tomorrow (ruling could come tomorrow---of course the Court never tells you in advance when ruling on ABC will happen). And Father M., I'm not sure what type of relations your bishop has with the Savannah-based Episcopal Diocese of Georgia (joint services, helping the poor and the like), but he may want to evaluate such ties after their bishop (see Episcopal Bishop Scott Benhase's "e-crozier" on their diocesan website) last week says there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Things are pretty bad when southern Episcopalians are becoming as liberal as their northern and western counterparts!!!

James said...

I agree with Dialogue. If Fr. Z was a regular parish priest, he'd probably steer clear of offering guidance that could be taken the wrong way.

rcg said...

Super Mum, maybe Pope Francis was giving Schellenhuber a platform to self emmoliate like he did Cardinal Kasper.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous Jan:

I do not know about this fellow you mention but a couple of minutes’ internet search suggests that your depiction of him may not be entirely accurate. Here are a couple of examples. First, the way you present the point about the Earth Constitution may make it seem that the Constitution is all about the environment. I suspect that is not the case but it is a “vision” of “world government.” This is notion that international law and international political science types like to play around with from time to time. Second and more serious perhaps, I don’t think he advocated a population of one billion. Instead he warned that if certain measures were not taken to deal with climate change, the carrying capacity of the Earth would become one billion – which is clearly a very different matter (indeed he seems to lament this outcome).

I hope your depiction is not representative of the quality of the assertions by community of the climate change deniers.

Anonymous 2 said...

Correction: “by the community of climate change deniers.”

My computer used to highlight syntactical mangling due to editing. For some reason it no longer does so.

Angry Augustinian said...

Recently, Shellenhuber was questioned about the role the oceans play in climate change and in cooling the earth by absorbing heat. He admitted that they do play a role but he had not factored that into his calculations. Cafeteria science, anyone?

Anonymous 2 said...

In the interests of furthering a better understanding regarding Episcopal Bishop Scott Benhase’s posting on the website referenced by Anonymous at 4:32 p.m. , here is the fuller context:

“Later this month the Supreme Court of the United States may make a definitive ruling on what many call ‘marriage equality,’ that is, whether same-sex couples will have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples in legal marriage. To me, this is a basic issue of justice and civil rights under our Constitution. Two people, provided they’ve reached the age of majority, should have the right to choose to whom they wish to be married. And I pray that’s how the Court will decide.

“The Episcopal Church, however, has a different standard and set of expectations when a couple enters into ‘Christian Marriage’ as this Church has received that sacrament in our tradition. So, in the Church we aren’t primarily discerning justice and civil rights, but the theology and doctrine of Christian Marriage. It’s one thing to support justice and civil rights for all, but it’s another thing to contemplate changing how the Church understands her sacramental theology.

“We’ve already declared that a priest of our Church can bless same-sex relationships in God’s name. I wholeheartedly support such blessings and I see such blessings as an analogous, yet distinct good, from the practice of Christian Marriage. It’s similar, but it’s not the same. An example of analogous, yet distinct goods is the orders of ministry within the Church (laity, bishop, priest, deacon). Each share vocational virtues, but each is still distinct, offering particular charisms for building up the whole Body of Christ.

“About the same time that the Supreme Court issues its ruling, our Church’s General Convention will gather in Salt Lake City. There, we’ll prayerfully debate and then discern what we believe God is calling us to do in terms of same-sex marriage. I don’t perceive there’s a consensus in our Church for one particular way forward. There are strong convictions on all sides concerning this discernment. But, because we tend to resolve hard questions like this by majority vote, my guess is we’ll in some way resolve this question in such a manner…at least for the next three years.”

Of course, to get the complete context, one needs to read the entire post:

Anonymous 2 said...

Sorry, I forgot the ellipsis after the second paragraph in the quote from Episcopal Bishop Benhase – after the word “theology.”

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, there is quite a lot available on the internet about Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who is no longer the German Government's advisor on climate change as it is considered that he and his group are not open to discussion but have a dogmatic view all of their own. He has indeed expressed views about the world being over-populated. Vox Cantoris supplies further information on him that is alarming.

Vox quotes Schellnhuber:

"Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated—and therefore more appropriate—version of the conventional “world government” notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court. I cannot discuss these institutions in any detail here, but I would like to indicate at least that the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; andthe Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution."

Yes. today the Pope has appointed this man to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences."

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is an athiest to boot but that shouldn't worry Catholics, should it?


Angry Augustinian said...

Che lives!!!

Mark said...

Father Zuhlsdorf was just was tongue-in-cheek?

Father Zuhlsdorf said of the Encyclical that "it’s pretty hard on free markets. I don’t care much for that discussion. So, here’s an initial approach… the … “recyclical”?

"Perhaps we can pay as much attention to the sections on markets and environment, as the catholic Left pays to Humanae vitae. When the libs shove it in our faces and command us to accept every word, we can pay as much attention to it as they gave to Summorum Pontificum."

Those are merely humorous, tongue-in-cheek comments? Really?

Is Father Zuhlsdorf's claim that the Encyclical "pretty hard on free markets" a tongue-in-cheek...I'm just kidding...comment?

Is his comment that "we can pay as much attention to the sections on markets and environment, as the catholic Left pays to Humanae vitae" just another joke?

Really? I guess that Father Zuhlsdorf was again kidding about the Encyclical being pretty hard on free markets...and was just kidding about the "catholic Left" not paying attention to Humanae Vitae. After all, the "catholic Left" actually promotes Humanae Vitae.

Father Zuhlsdorf continued that "when the libs shove it in our faces and command us to accept every word, we can pay as much attention to it as they gave to Summorum Pontificum."

Ahhh...another joke...mere humor about "when the libs shove it in our faces..." Yep, that sound like humor to me.

"...we can pay as much attention to it as they gave to Summorum Pontificum."

Another supposed "tongue-in-cheek" comment. As we know, "the libs" are very supportive of Summorum Pontificum. Yeah, that was Father Zuhlsdorf's real point.

Sorry, I don't agree that Father Zuhlsdorf's comments in question are "jokes"..."tongue-in-cheek" humor.

Mark Thomas

Angry Augustinian said...

I agree with Fr. Z.

rcg said...

Read the comments, specifically fr Z's reply to Fr Martin Fox.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous Jan:

Thank you for your reply. But there is very little new in it. Vox Cantoris was my source for the point about Schnellnhuber’s views on world government. And whether or not he is an advocate of population control (“He has expressed views about the world being overpopulated” is totally ambiguous), it is a complete misrepresentation of his (almost diametrically opposite) views to suggest, as you did, that he favors reduction of the population to one billion. Your misrepresentation is, I am sure, unintentional, and it is understandable given the junk websites that seem to spew such nonsense. However, The New York Times report of what he actually said in 2009, to which I provided a link (did you read it?), gives the lie to such nonsense. One would hope that you would at least concede the error, if for no other reason than that people lose credibility when they make such errors and, worse, do not then either correct them or at least admit them. Instead, you seem to double down on the error – which is par for the course nowadays.

As for whether his being an atheist should worry Catholics, I would make two points. First, how do you know he is an atheist? I cannot find that information on the internet. Please cite to a source. Second, even if he is, Einstein was often accused of the same thing (although he was not a traditional theist, he did deny being an atheist). Does that mean we should dismiss the theory of relativity?

None of the above is meant to suggest that we should not be concerned about the influence this fellow may be having over Pope Francis. But, for goodness sake, let’s at least form a view based on the actual facts. Why is it that so few people seem to care any more about trying to get at the actual truth of the matter? It’s all “narrative this” and “narrative that,” “my narrative is bigger than your narrative,” etc. This is the perniciousness of internet tribalism and it needs to stop.

Anonymous 2 said...


I share your instinct for skepticism here but it’s actually hard to know for sure. It could be sarcasm I suppose.

Paul said...

The 2020 USA Census should be a hoot to read. Is everyone going to have to submit to a DNA test for Gender and Racial identification? The race is on to be the most minor of minorities!

Twenty, thirty years ago the proponents of all these "rights" would label someone as CRAZY to suggest what would happen is what is happening now. Well, here we are, still slipping down that slope that would "never" appear.

To think that all this is the result of trying to "help" people...

Charles G said...

Dear Father M,

It is a good thing you were not at Vatican I. I'm sure you would have been in Cardinal Manning's Ultramontanist camp wishing the Pope to make one infallible statement every day before breakfast. As for Father Z, he was obviously joking and teasing the liberal dissenters with a little bit of their own logic. I am ready to give the requisite religious submission of will and intellect to any statements of faith or morals of the Pope, but certainly science and application of general moral issues to specific policy carries much room for prudential and respectful disagreement, which I think it is authoritarian of you to suggest that one cannot voice such. You paint with far too broad a brush. There certainly are some bloggers who are patently disrespectful to the office of the Pope with offensive names and so forth (Mundabor and Verrechio come to mind), but Father Z has been by far one of the more balanced blogs when it has come to the perplexing and disturbing actions of our current Pontiff.

Charles G said...

"the community of climate change deniers"

First off, no one denies climate change. The issue is "man-made" climate change. Second, what confidence you must have in your "science" that no one is allowed to question so-called "consensus" and that you must call people names and demonize them for doing so. Because of course science has nothing to do with asking questions. Darn that Galileo and Einstein -- how dare they have questioned the scientific consensus of their day!

John Nolan said...


There is common belief over here that Americans do not understand irony. You have just reinforced this.

Anon 2

'Climate change deniers' has a nicely pejorative ring to it, like 'holocaust deniers' However, those who are rightly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change don't deny its existence - in fact the crux of their argument is that it has always existed. Slandering one's opponents is usually a sign that one's own argument is flawed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, here is the full quote of what John Schellnhuber said - the New York Times only published part of what he said which has perhaps lulled you into a false sense of security - understandable given the credentials of the New York Times.

" Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.

What a triumph. On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better.

Already with the current world population of 6.6 billion people, an overuse of resources is taking place. In the year 2050, 9.4 billion people will be living on the planet.

The earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050. You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe. When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode."

So if we're around in 2050 we can all watch the planet explode or perhaps just jump off before this happens?

As regards whether or not he is an atheist - all the news reports are saying he is, including that august body the New York Times which you rely on - so I will quote them:

"German scientist John Schellnhuber, an atheist, is credited with coming up with the goal to keep global warming from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels."

Perhaps you can find a statement where he denies being an atheist?


Angry Augustinian said...

Schellenhuber is just as dishonest as all liberal scientists, picking and choosing data to support their preconceived ideas.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, I think the context of Episcopal Bishop Benhase's letter is pretty clear---two people should have the right to choose to whom they wish to be married. What is perhaps more disconcerting is how "fluid" the definition of sexual morality is in that Church---just a matter of putting it to a vote, we'll resolve it for at least the next three years (their annual convention is every three years). No one should be surprised if they formally "vote" for that at their annual convention later this month. I've heard complaints from fellow Episcopalians that he is more liberal than they originally thought (with the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia---or southern Georgia in reality---more conservative than the traditionally liberal Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta). Nowhere in his statement does he say "marriage is...and always will be---between a man and a woman." But no one should be shocked by his liberalism---he was, after all, a priest previously in the very liberal Episcopal Diocese of Washington (as in DC, not the state), where liberal political correctness has long run rampant.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

And yet again, it seems that you fail to put the language in context:

Before this passage according to the NYT report Schellnhuber said:

“[I]f the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated.

I think you will find that he was not advocating population control so much as control of greenhouse emissions. I have tried to find the full text of his speech on the internet but without success. You seem to have access to it. Can you please provide us with a link?

Again, I could not find anything about his being an atheist. But my internet skills are not that great. So, again please provide us with a link. Thanks

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, simply Google "Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, atheist" and you will come up with numerous citations. Therefore, if he is not an atheist, I am sure that he will be on record as denying this. However, I haven't been able to find any such disclaimer from him. Can you link me to one?

Prolifers are pointing to the Pope's appointees and say:

"One concern among pro-life advocates was that two of the pope’s environmental advisers have advocated for population control methods such as abortion, contraception and sterilization. Pro-lifers are referring to economist Jeffrey Sachs and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

Sachs and Schellnhuber were both involved in crafting a Vatican document claiming that “[f]ossil fuel exploitation has also taken a huge toll on human well being.”

“They are both radical neo-Malthusian de-populationists. I don’t say that lightly,” Westen said.

“Jeffrey Sachs is an explicitly abortion-promoting population control fanatic. And how can the Vatican work with this man when they believe abortion to be murder?” Westen asked. “But Schellnhuber, the German is even worse. He’s on record as suggesting the earth has a carrying capacity of under 1 billion people. What he proposes to do with the other six billion is anyone’s guess.”

Sachs, who now heads Columbia University’s Earth Institute, has been a staunch proponent of slowing world population growth, especially in poor developing nations in Africa and Asia. In a 2004 article, Sachs said governments should do away with programs to encourage having children.

“We should intensify our efforts to slow population growth through voluntary means, and we should recognize that levelling off the Earth’s population now would add to human happiness and strengthen environmental sustainability later,” Sachs wrote in 2004.

In 2011, however, Sachs advocated for a maximum three-child policy in Nigeria to stave off ecological disaster.

Schellnhuber, on the other hand, is seen as more extreme by pro-lifers because of his argument that the world is overpopulated by 6 billion people — for reference there are about 7 billion people on the planet.

“In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something — namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,” Dr. Schellnhuber said in 2009, according to The New York Times.

In a 2008 interview with PHOENIX TV, Schellnhuber said the “earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050.”

“You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe,” he added. “When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”

Schellnhuber served as a climate policy advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and is a visiting professor at Oxford University.”

The New York Times report is here:

The full report is a video in German, so I can't help you there.

Doing your research for you I was able to read some quite interesting comments. Various people have commented they think that if he [Schellnhuber] so worried about the planet being overpopulated then he should help the situation by removing himself. Other reports highlight the big mistake made by climatewarmers that the dates given for their belief that the poles will melt are all factually incorrect - and Schellnhuber admits this to his embarrassment in the New York Times.

Others point out that Schellnhuber and others who are making a BIG LIVING out of the climatewarming agenda attend heaps of conferences travelling in large jets etc. How hypocritical is that?


Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, here is a report on one of Schnellbaumber's blunders on the Himalayan ice melt he claimed by 2035:

"New Film Shows Hans Schellnhuber Claiming “Himalayan 2035 Glacier Melt Was “Very Easy To Calculate”

Today we know that this claim should have been a very easy-to-detect - gross blunder."

- See more at:


Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

Yes, it seems the IPCC Fourth Assessment report contains a mistake. My German is a bit rusty but if I understand correctly from the video in the linked article the mistake was in claiming the Himalaya ice cap would disappear by 2035 instead of by 2350. That sounds like some kind of typo to me. Have I understood correctly? The claim came from the World Wildlife Fund and slipped into the report without adequate checking. Here is some background on how the error got into the report, which presumably Schellnhuber then cited in the interview with him:

As Schellnhuber and others concede, it is important to avoid this kind of mistake due to credibility concerns. But you cannot dismiss everything else because of a single error or even several errors. They have to be placed in context. The fact that such errors occur warrants caution and appropriate skepticism, not climate change denial. That is the calm, balanced, and wise approach to such matters.

Now, can you please provide the links I requested? Thanks

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2 it was more than a typo it was because "the Himalayan glacier area given in the IPCC report was completely false. It is only 33,000 square kilometers and not a grotesque 500,000.”

"The creator of the above video, Rainer Hoffmann, had spent three months researching past statements made by Schellnhuber. The result is a 10-part series called: The 10 Inconvenient Truths of Climate Pope Hans Schellnhuber. It exposes a number of troubling, contradictory statements made by the Potsdam Institute director over the past years.

According to the klimamanifest site, the above video was inspired by comments Schellnhuber had made on German public television on May 27, 2013, where he once again warned of a planet warming by 4°C by the end of the century.


Part I: Schellnhuber claimed the Himalayas melt of 2035 was “very easy to calculate”
At the 0:50 mark Schellnhuber is shown in an exclusive interview on ZDF German public television on October 30, 2009, explaining the risks of the globe’s “third ice cap“: the Tibetan Plateau, whose summertime melt water feeds a number major Asian rivers that help support 2.5 billion people in the region. Schellnhuber at the 2:06 mark:
If now, and one can calculate this very easily, in the next 30, 40 years, with 2°C of warming this will with certainty happen, um, when these large glaciers disappear for the most part, these rivers will dry up in the summertime. And in winter, this is the other side of the story, the precipitation will fall as rain in the valley; that means the floods will be far more dramatic, no?”

Clearly we see that in 2009, two years after the 4AR had been issued in 2007, Schellnhuber was preaching the Himalayan 2035 glacier meltdown, even claiming he could “calculate the melt very easily” and that major rivers like the Yangtze, Ganges, Mekong´, etc. would dry up. But just over 2 months later, the media found out that what had been “very easy to calculate” was a huge whopping error. The above video shows two clips: one on 19 January 2010 and one on 11 February 2010 that say the 2035 Himalayan ice melt was a huge blunder. Moreover, the 3SAT report at the 4:20 mark of the above video points out yet another whopping error made by the 2007 IPCC report:

It should have been clear to experts that the scenario was pure nonsense, and not because so much ice in this region could ever melt in just 25 years, but also because the Himalayan glacier area given in the IPCC report was completely false. It is only 33,000 square kilometers and not a grotesque 500,000.”

Suddenly 93% of “the Earth’s the third pole” disappears.


Anonymous said...

I provided the link but for some reason it wasn't posted but if you Google :Hans Schellnhuber, atheist", you will come up with numerous news reports including from the New York Times. I have Googled but cannot find any disclaimer from Hans Schellnhuber saying he is not an atheist as reported by all the main media.

part 2 of my previous post showing the blunders of Hans Schellnhuber:

At the 4.47 mark Ottmar Edenhofer, deputy director of the PIK, forgets about what his boss had said was “very easy to calculate“, and shifts the blame for the Himalayan blunder on the IPCC overall peer-review process:
This is in now way excusable, and naturally we have to make sure that we make the peer-review of the text much more efficient.”

A remarkable piece of advice when one considers that Edenhofer’s boss, Schellnhuber, had claimed earlier that the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 was “certainty”.
At the 5:40 mark, BR television on 3 June 2012 asks how the gross Himalaya error found its way into the IPCC report. The answer is delivered by Professor Hans von Storch at the 6:05 mark:

I think one of the reasons why it was there is because of they worked sloppily. Perhaps it had something to do with, so to say, the desire for the right result.”

Yet, no journalists ever bothered to follow up and ask Schellnhuber why he had peddled such an absurd prognosis back in 2009. In an interview with Spiegel on October 6, 2010, Schellnhuber acts like he had never made the ridiculous Himalayan 2035 melting prediction. In the Spiegel interview (7:10 mark) he is quoted (highlighted in yellow):

There were just a few bad mistakes, but they were very troublesome. The IPCC is in the public spotlight and there is so much at play and errors of this magnitude mustn’t happen. The IPCC has to do its homework in order to overcome the current credibility crisis.”

Clearly Schellnhuber wants us to believe that he had never peddled the “easy to calculate” 2035 Himalayan ice melt scenario. Journalist Karsten Schwanke, who had done the interview with Schellnhuber on ZDF television back in 2009, wrote in an e-mail on February 1, 2010 (see 8:00 min mark):

It is of course huge crap that such errors go through the entire IPCC. I thought they all worked to check everything a thousand times. Personally I was always skeptical about this melt warning. Ice at 7000 or 8000 meters elevation, why would it melt? It’s way too cold. At most it could sublimate if it stopped snowing. But the India monsoons bring new snow every summer. I just don’t understand it.”

In summary what turned out to be one of climate science’s most embarrassing blunders, was also one Schellnhuber’s most “certain” and “very easy to calculate” scenarios.
Finally at the 8:40 mark of the video, Schellnhuber is taped in an interview saying:

I believe that there has never been a socially relevant area examined by science that has been more meticulously checked for errors than climate science.”

I don’t see how any expert could have been more misleading."

- See more at:


Angry Augustinian said...

Glacier melt…don't they serve that at Baskin Robbins

Anonymous 2 said...

Yes, thanks Anon. Jan, I read all that. I also thought I distinctly heard mention of the year 2350 instead of the year 2035. So, is anyone denying that the Himalayan glacier will melt by 2350 with the effects claimed, whatever the actual size in square mile may be?

George said...

Ecological tree line history and palaeoclimate – review of megafossil
evidence from the Swedish Scandes
Kullman, Leif Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences.
2013 (English)In: Boreas, ISSN 0300-9483, E-ISSN 1502-3885, Vol. 42, no 3, 555-567

A Summary:

Birch and Pine trees in the Swedish Scandes first appeared on early deglaciated nunataks during the Late glacial. Their tree lines peaked at almost 600m higher than present-day elevations. This implies (adjusted for land uplift) that early Holocene summer temperatures may have been 2.3 degrees C above ABOVE modern ones. Tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4800 years Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.

In commenting further on the findings, Kullman says that "the emergence during the past two millennia of at least two short-term tree line and thermal excursions to higher than present levels (i.e. early 21st century) indicates that the current performance of the ecological and climatic systems is well within the envelope of the natural variability of the late Holocene period."

Thus, on the basis of real-world data (properly analyzed), Kullman's analysis of tree-line data, along with the results of the many other studies he cites, jointly provide yet another strong amalgamation of evidence that supports the view that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about Earth's current level of warmth.

A link to the full research paper (it is in Adobe format):

Climate Change in the Swedish Scandes

The Pope and his advisers could well be right about the climate change and global warming. It is too early, and there exists enough counter evidence, to call those who deny it as being wrong. That being said, there are good things in the Encyclical.

Given the teachings of the Church such major issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, artificial contraception, euthanasia and the male only priesthood, versus where the increasingly secular humanist world is headed on these, there seems to be a day of reckoning coming( barring Divine intervention of some sort). Perhaps what the Holy Father is doing by delving into one of the secular's big domains, will have the effect of delaying that which seems increasingly likely- a coming persecution from the unbelievers- a little longer.

Ar any rate, we should pray for the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that info, George. It is that sort of information that is making some scientists more than a little sceptical. The deliberate changing of data around the world, in particular, should be enough to alert people who have a mind of their own to at least take a look at what is being said on climate change. There are a lot of people profiting financially from the spectre of global warming. Referring to the reversing of a cooling trend figures in South America it is further reported:

"But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.

Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).

By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D’Aleo and WUWT’s Anthony Watts (and if warmists are tempted to comment below this article online, it would be welcome if they could address their criticisms to the evidence, rather than just resorting to personal attacks on the scientists who, after actually examining the evidence, have come to a view different from their own).

One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world."


Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan and George:

Here is the problem. You can cite your skeptical study and I can cite a study rebutting it (for example, I recall an earlier exchange about the climate skeptic Richard Muller who subsequently recanted his skepticism and also about the tree line). We could go round and round all day like this and still get nowhere because (at least speaking for myself) we are not scientists. Now, I do not draw from this fact the “political” inference, apparently much beloved by so-called conservative politicians over here, that I should therefore reject the consensus of 97% of climate change scientists. Instead if anything I would draw the opposite inference while still remaining cautious and wanting to hold scientists on either side of the debate to account for their claims.

Ss I said in our earlier exchange George:

The point is that we should be guided by the very best science possible and (this is very important) that we should try to minimize the effect of bias (especially ideological bias) in undertaking scientific investigation and reporting the results (and notice I said “minimize” because the complete elimination of bias in scientific inquiry is probably impossible). This approach will yield the most reliable “facts.” But what if the “facts” are still controverted? Well, isn’t it then a question of weighing all the available evidence relevant to both cause and effect to determine the probabilities in accordance with some standard of proof (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. as the lawyers would say), coupled with allocation of the burden of proof? And shouldn’t both the standard and burden of proof be determined by the consequences of one side or the other being wrong and thus the kind and level of risk involved?

Do you agree? If so, it means that we should rigorously apply the scientific method to get the best data we can. It also means looking at all the data together and not cherry picking those items that favor one side or the other. In addition it means that we should be very careful when “evaluating” data. This is especially true for non-scientists.

What is not reasonable, surely, is for the debate to be driven by the ideologies of environmental yea-sayers (and their often quasi-religious zeal) and of environmental naysayers (with their heads in the sand and their eyes on the bottom line). The stakes are too high for such immature nonsense. So, after the typical statement “Well, I’m not a scientist” by “conservative” politicians there should be a humble silence, combined with a desire for scientific accountability – and the same for the other side.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

I realize that this post is probably futile but I have only just noticed that in your post at 8:00 p.m. on June 18 you repeat the assertion that Schellnhuber advocated reduction of the Earth’s population to 1 billion. You cite someone called Westen who cites to the 2009 New York Times article reporting on one of Schellnhuber’s speeches. Now, I have already debunked this claim in two earlier posts (5:18 p.m. and 10:17 p.m. on June 17) and linked you to the actual New York Times article: Here it is again:

I explained that the context seems to suggest that Schellnhuber was warning what would happen if measures to control carbon emissions were not controlled. In other words it was a doomsday prediction not a policy suggestion. You replied by quoting more of the speech, suggesting the NYT had only reported on part of it (9:42 a.m. on June 18). I responded by suggesting that you failed to put the extended quote in the context of the doomsday prediction and asked you to link us to the full text of Schellnhuber’s speech, which I assumed you had access to, so we could all see for ourselves the FULL text of what he said (5:23 p.m. on June 18) but you never did. Instead you cited Westen and pro-lifers who either cannot or will not read things in their proper context and their attacks on Sachs and Schellnhuber (8:00 p.m. on June 18). (I am not addressing Sachs here.)

Why do you insist on repeating this apparently false claim that Schellnhuber advocated reducing Earth’s population to 1 billion? As I said before, people who do this sort of thing lose all credibility. It is important for us to try to respect the facts. This should not be a game of scoring debating points. As Catholics we should be dedicated to pursuit of the truth however inconvenient it might be not just in repeating a worn narrative. And please send us the link to the full text of Schellnhuber’s speech if you have it (which I am now beginning to doubt). Thanks

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, if you had read the article carefully you would see that I was reporting a pro-life publication saying:

"He’s on record as suggesting the earth has a carrying capacity of under 1 billion people. What he proposes to do with the other six billion is anyone’s guess."

Here is some more interesting background to Schellnhuber:

"Enter Schellnhuber, a German scientist who came up with the 2 degrees Centigrade temperature limit and is known for his radical ideas on climate change. That is, we must limit any increase in global warming to 2 degrees or humanity faces unavoidable catastrophe. In 2009, for example, he claimed famously that the “carrying capacity” of the Earth is less then one billion people. It will be interesting to see if he still holds these views in the near future, and if so, what advice he will offer on how to adjust that number, given that the world’s population currently stands at 7.2 billion.

Schellnhuber, is director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute, which has been crafting data, indicating alarming climate change like the 2 degree trigger, to frighten German politicians into adopting radical climate policies. His predictions are based on yet to be validated, computer-generated models, predicting doomsday scenarios. In reality, satellite data confirms there has been no notable warming for the past 18 years. Sea ice is on the rise. Crop production is increasing. Hurricane numbers are down. Sea level rise has declined for the past decade – all of the catastrophes Schellnhuber predicted – are not happening.

Perhaps that is why Schellnhuber revised his 2011 statement that the emissions curve needs to peak no later than 2020 in order to meet the 2 degree target. Now he says: at latest by 2030. Funny how climate change alarmists will keep adjusting their predictions instead of evaluating new data. That’s an example of why some call climate change “a moral crusade in search of a scientific theory.”

Schellnhuber is also the director of the WBGU, the German Advisory council on Global Change. The council is made up of nine scientists. Their primary task is to advise policymakers in Germany and worldwide on how we should deal with climate change.

Their 446-page “Master Plan” for “The Great Transformation of Global Society,” was designed to fast-track Germany, and the world, into “sustainability” and an almost carbon-free society by 2050. Their draconian recommendations have caused the price of electricity to rise so substantially, Germans have taken to calling their electric bill their “second rent.”

Anonymous said...

Part 2

To reduce carbon emissions, the German government has invested heavily in wind and solar power. But these methods have proved to be unreliable and unsustainable without government subsidy, tearing at the German economy.

Recommendations in the WBGU “Master Plan” include a “future council” made up of a few, non-elected men who would have the power to veto democratic decisions it deemed unacceptable. But a backlash against this kind of threat to democracy is brewing in Germany.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the German equivalent of the Washington Post, has been highly critical of Schellnhuber, and writes that one of the fundamental aims of the WBGU was changing Germany’s constitutional law: climate protection was to become an official state priority. The WBGU even called it a test for democracy, claiming that if society failed to act, it would tell us that democracy was no longer capable of functioning in the face of crisis. The FAZ disagrees, saying that the WBGU “failed to trick their way past democracy.”

Pope Francis, it seems, has been badly misinformed and led astray by advisors such as Schellnhuber. However, contrary to what global warming extremists suggest, the science of climate change is not decided."


Anonymous 2 said...

Anon. Jan:

Yes, I did notice you were repeating the falsehood propagated by a Pro-Life website (you quoted much more than those two lines by the way). Please explain how repeating someone else’s falsehood with approval lets you off the hook when you know it is a falsehood?

As you refuse to acknowledge that it is a falsehood but continue to double down on it, and on the assumption that you know what you are doing, I have to assume further that everything you write on the subject of climate change is ideologically driven and untrustworthy and that your tactic is simply to malign those who argue that climate change is real and that human beings are the primary cause. Therefore, contrary to my usual practice of reading everything and then attempting to evaluate it, I am sorry but I will not read the rest of what you wrote. It is now irretrievably tainted by your evident bias and the likelihood that it comes from the same sorts of junk websites whose untruths and distortions you have already foisted upon readers here.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2, here is the original quote again:

" Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.

What a triumph. On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better.

Already with the current world population of 6.6 billion people, an overuse of resources is taking place. In the year 2050, 9.4 billion people will be living on the planet.

The earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050. You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe. When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode."

Now evidently he is denying that quote - seems typical of him doesn't. Always reneging on what he has said when he is found to be in error or queried about what the planet should do with the excess 6 billion people. He got the Himalayan melt abysmally wrong - which you tried to interpret as a mere typo!

If you wish to read how he denies what he said and calls the journalists liars read here:

Anonymous said...

Anon 2 - there have been plenty of news outlets reporting what Schellnhuber was reported by the New York Times to have said. In a recent interview he is now calling all the journalists liars. But as Breitbart reports:

"Instead of suggesting that he was misquoted or that his critics misunderstood what he said at Copenhagen, Schellnhuber called reporters liars: "[It's] a complete lie. You can go back to the original lecture. I gave it in Copenhagen. I know there are some vicious people who try to discredit you. I have never spoken in favor of population control measures. What I said in Copenhagen in 2009 was about the carrying capacity of the earth. There have been estimates since the 1700s on how many people in the earth can you carry, so to speak. This number goes up and down, and some say 10 billion, others 100 billion, some just 100 million."
But, at the Copenhagen speech, as reported in the New York Times, Schellnhuber did not elaborate so extravagantly as he did with Pentin. He did not say estimates of Earth's carrying capacity could be 10 billion or 100 billion. He said the carrying capacity of Earth is estimated "at less than 1 billion," which is what Breitbart News and other outlets reported. It should be noted that radical environmentalists have long proposed what Schellnhuber proposed at Copenhagen, that the carrying capacity of the Earth is 1 billion or less, leaving open the question of what to do with the dangerous excess of six billion."

Of course he also did a backtrack on the Himalayan melt when it was reported how ridiculous it was and it was based on incorrect Himalayan measurement.

Breibart reports that even in his latest interview he refers to "'population problem,' which is a phrase population control advocates tend to use" and "An interview with Schellnhuber (in German on YouTube) has come to light in which he doubles down on his belief in overpopulation. In the interview he posits that when the Earth reaches nine billion people, which is projected to be very soon, “The Earth will explode” due to resource depletion, which is similar to the now debunked argument first advanced by Paul Erlich in the 1960s that got the modern population control movement humming in the first place."

So Catholics have a right to be concerned about this Godless man and to wonder why Pope Francis chose him as an advisor.