February 9, 2017
By Pete Baklinski from LifeSiteNews:
The undisputed father of the modern, pro-abortion population control movement told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview that he is “thrilled” with the direction Pope Francis is taking the Catholic Church.
“I’m thrilled with the new pope moving the Church in the right direction,” Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, told LifeSiteNews in a back-and-forth email exchange this week.
Does Ehrlich see hints that Francis will attempt to reverse Catholic teaching against contraception? “Family planning with modern contraception is the only ethical solution [to overpopulation],” he replies. “…Francis is a brilliant and compassionate man – draw your own conclusions.”
The Stanford biologist has been invited by the Vatican to present a paper at its conference at the end of this month on the topic of “sav[ing] the natural world” from extinction.
Titled Biological Extinction, the conference will address what Vatican organizers call an unsustainable “imbalance” between the world’s population and what the earth is capable of producing. The event is jointly sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
Dr. Ehrlich champions sex-selective abortion as well as mass forced sterilization as legitimate methods to curb population growth.
Ehrlich has been inimical to the Catholic Church and Her teachings on life, especially under the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
In his 1994 book The Stork and the Plow Ehrlich suggested that the “brightest possibility for changing the Vatican’s position [against contraception] and letting humanity get on with saving itself is the determination of many Catholics outside the Vatican to effectuate that change.”
He denounced Catholicism as “dangerous” in a January 2013 article (two months prior to Francis’ election) for its opposition to contraception.
During the beginning of Francis’ pontificate, Ehrlich at first continued his trend of criticizing the pope and the Church for opposing contraception:
- In 2014 he said that the “pope and many of the bishops are one of the truly evil, regressive forces on the planet” for their “opposition to the use of contraception.”
- In September 2015 he called Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ “raving nonsense” for not allowing population control as a solution to environmental problems.
- In October 2015 he called upon Pope Francis to break away from Catholic teaching by supporting “women’s rights and family planning.” He said that Francis “needs to heed his own comments on the Church’s ‘obsession’ with contraception and abortion, and assume a leadership position in support of women’s rights and family planning.”
But Ehrlich has now changed his tune.
This may be due to the more than a dozen instances since 2014 in which Pope Francis has indicated that he takes a different approach to the traditional Catholic teaching on contraception.
The Catholic Church teaches in Humanae Vitae that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of human life.” Contraception is called “intrinsically wrong” since it destroys the unitive and procreative integrity of the marital act.
LifeSiteNews asked Ehrlich in what direction he now sees Francis moving the Church.
“More towards concern for environmental issues like climate disruption and the Sixth Great Extinction [see here] that threaten the lives of future generations,” he said.
Does he see hints that Francis will attempt to reverse Catholic teaching against contraception?
“I think the Pope recognizes the threat to future lives, and to the persistence of society, posed by overpopulation,” he said.
“Family planning with modern contraception is the only ethical solution, and if made universally available would greatly reduce the frequency of abortion. It also would generally improve women’s health and education. Francis is a brilliant and compassionate man – draw your own conclusions,” he added.
Will he suggest in his paper at the upcoming Vatican conference that the Church reverse her teaching against contraception?
“It’s a joint paper with a colleague and not finished yet. Such issues will probably be determined when we meet in Rome,” he said.
URGENT: Tell the Vatican to cancel the speech by pro-abort extremist Paul Ehrlich. SIGN THE PETITION. Click here.
Michael Pakaluk, writing in Crux Now, called it a “nightmare” to see the Vatican honoring a “vicious attacker of the Church” with a prominent platform.
“Erhlich do[es] not simply contemplate abortion and contraception for population control: it is [his] main message. To invite [him], therefore, to speak on the practical question of population is implicitly to embrace [his] ethical commitments,” he wrote in a February 8 piece titled “By inviting enemies of Church, papal academies risk perfect storm.”
“Ehrlich has not changed his views in 60 years…He is addressing [the Vatican conference] to contribute to the undermining of Catholic teaching,” Pakaluk wrote.
LifeSiteNews asked the Holy See to respond to the concern that Ehrlich’s invitation might create the impression in the minds of believers and unbelievers alike that the Catholic Church no longer holds and defends the truth of the sanctity of human life and the unitive and procreative integrity of the conjugal act. No response was given.
LifeSiteNews also contacted the pontifical academies hosting the conference. They were asked why an anti-life, anti-family, and anti-Catholic scholar was invited to present a paper at their workshop. No response was given.
Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, said he was not surprised to see Ehrlich’s alleged change of heart towards Catholicism given the direction Pope Francis appears to be attempting to steer the Church.
“Of course Professor Ehrlich is ‘thrilled.’ Why wouldn’t he be? The same Church he has denigrated for decades is now seemingly open to his apocalyptic views,” he told LifeSiteNews.
Reggie Littlejohn, founder of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, which fights gendercide and forced abortion in Asia, called Ehrlich’s views “irreconcilable with established Catholic teaching.”
“Ehrlich has stated that women should not be allowed to have as many children as they want, and has equated babies with garbage. He is anti-woman, anti-child, and ultimately, anti-human. It’s his kind of thinking that gave rise to China’s brutal One Child Policy,” she told LifeSiteNews.
This is not the first time an advocate for positions contrary to the Catholic faith has been invited to attend Vatican conferences. The leaders of both Pontifical Academies have, under Francis’ pontificate, surprisingly given prominent platforms to some of the world’s foremost proponents of abortion and population control, including Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs.
A LifeSiteNews petition asking Pope Francis to stop Ehrlich from speaking at the Vatican conference and to clarify that the Vatican in no way supports his positions has been signed by 9000 people.
“But Ehrlich has now changed his tune.”
No, he hasn’t. Not a bit.
“This may be due to the more than a dozen instances since 2014 in which Pope Francis has indicated that he takes a different approach to the traditional Catholic teaching on contraception.” It appears the Pope has very possibly “changed his tune, not Ehrlich.
Let’s try to get these little details right, can we?
Is the world overcrowded? Yes. Far too many people in the wrong places.
Thus a plethora of refugees and immigrants
That’s not really true, Toad.
The refugees are fleeing from wars and brutality, often from places that are thinly populated like Somalia or Sudan.
The migrants are fleeing from corrupt, wicked governments that impoverish their peoples and give no-one a chance to improve their own position; again, often from comparatively thinly populated places.
The most densely populated parts of the world also tend to be the wealthiest.
That Ehrlich guy’s only formal qualifications are in entomology. Are there too many insects in the world? I’ve read more than once that the State of Texas has enough room for everyone on Earth to live comfortably. My province is almost 100 million acres larger, all of which is habitable with abundant supplies of water.
Toad @ 11:02
Is the world overcrowded?
No. The whole world population could fit into the state of Texas, living at the same density level as New York City! (Not that one would want to of course 😉.)
As technology advances, and Man’s capacity to discover more effective methods of food production and housing increases, planet Earth is finding new ways to feed its growing population. And in the far distant future, who is to say what amazing inventions – perhaps even traveling to and populating outer space? – Man will achieve? Our Lord tells us in the Gospel not to worry about such things.
What we must never forget is that every life is a precious gift from God to be loved and cared for.
P.S. Oops, sorry JH – I’ve just repeated what you’ve already pointed out! (I started tapping out the comment, got interrupted, and didn’t see yours when I got back to finish it 😳 )
Yes, there are still large land masses in the world that are very sparsely populated. People tend to want to go to places where the standard of living is higher; yet sometimes the better choice would be to stay in one’s homeland and work to bring the country’s natural resources to greater fruition, and work towards bringing justice and prosperity there.
Most of the migrants pouring into Europe are not fleeing “war and persecution”, but seeking entry for other motives that include varying degrees of poverty. They are “economic migrants” in far greater numbers than true “refugees”, as the German authorities have already discovered. Besides, they are nearly all Muslims with very different ideas of women and Western laws. Why don’t they go to those enormously rich and under-populated Gulf States that are inhabited by their co-religionists? Nobody knows!! (Or do they?)
It has also been estimated that over 70% of these immigrants are young males! These are the ones most needed in their original countries, and yet they are pouring out en masse. This influx of thousands of unattached young men is causing terrible problems of assimilation and a terrifying “rape culture” in many European countries.
Many say that Sweden is already “lost”!
“Yes, there are still large land masses in the world that are very sparsely populated. “
True, Kathleen. Why don’t all the dangerous , rape-cultured, refugees go and live in Antartica? All they’d need are wooly hats, scarves, and gloves.
Would you prefer to stay an Syria, or Somalia, or whatever wretched place – “..and work to bring the country’s natural resources to greater fruition, and work towards bringing justice and prosperity there.”?
Right. Neither would I. It’s why my family left Ireland for England. We were immigrants.
“Our Lord tells us in the Gospel not to worry about such things..”
Maybe we should take his advice and stop moaning about hordes of ravening foreigners coming into our countries. As to “living comfortably in Texas” – I’d find that impossible. All those nuts with guns.
Toad @ 07:38
Why send these poor migrants to freeze to death in the Antartica, Toad? That’s not very nice of you. Much better to re-direct them to the vast, under-populated, sunny Gulf States like Saudi Arabia. Loads of wealth and work there, and it would save the Saudis from having to search for workers further afield too, which is what they are doing right now. There would be no cultural or religious problems then either… and European women would no longer fear being harassed or gang-raped whenever they step outside by those among the immigrants who go in for this sort of vile behaviour.
We don’t need any more agnostics, humanists, or atheists, nor one more Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist or Cafeteria Christian living in our midst:
…which is not to say they’re unloved by God – but they’re burdens, not assets, to civilizational advance – except in the sense that they may cause serious (albeit sinful) Christians to sharpen their doctrinal and moral habits and wits. Let’s hope so.
“Why send these poor migrants to freeze to death in Antartica, Toad? That’s not very nice of you.”
Yes, Kathleen, I’m not very nice, as you probably realise.
Unlike Catholics, who are bound to love all their neighbours, as God commands, including Muslims (especially Muslims,in fact)
“Much better to re-direct them to the vast, under-populated, sunny Gulf States like Saudi Arabia..”
I suspect I’d sooner freeze to death, than live in Saudi, personally. Others may not . But then I don’t care for totalitarianism of any stripe.
Matter of taste, of course. Too many religious crackpots for my taste, telling us how we should behave.
But, if the Saudis don’t let refugees in, that is very unChristian of them.
We would not behave that way. Because we are not Muslims.
…oh please, frog (anticipating your predictable reply): I don’t deny the greatness of many historical figures who were lukewarm Christians or non-Christians. Utilising your Wikipedia gizmo and my own library, I can name twice as many some such as you. Genius and greatness, however, are far less important in God’s plan than simplicity, faith, love and (most of all) allegiance to Christ.
“We don’t need any more agnostics, humanists, or atheists, nor one more Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist or Cafeteria Christian living in our midst:”
How about more Catholics? How about a world consisting of nothing but Catholics?