The Vatican’s Amazon Synod

Rome Creates a New Sin!

  Those within the Vatican hierarchy who supported Francis and the Amazon Synod were full of the same pagan prattle as their leader.  Suddenly one heard talk of “ecological sins”; and during the Synod Mexican cardinal, Carlos Aguiar Retes, called for “ecological conversion”.[11]  He said “climate change” has amplified the “cry of the poor”, and the Church must respond with an “integral ecology”.  This, he explained, means a change of lifestyle, abandoning the throw-away culture. 

  It was stressed at the outset of the Synod that the task for the bishops gathered in the Vatican was to lay out “new paths for the Church and for an integral ecology”.[12]  What precisely is this?  According to Francis and the now-Green Vatican, integral ecology holds that everything is intimately related, and therefore ecology and social justice are to be intrinsically united.  One has to “listen to the cry of the earth as well as the cry of the poor”.  Thus integral ecology connects “care of nature” with “justice for the poor”.

  Retes also said that we need to start thinking about a simpler, more essential lifestyle.  Well, perhaps when the world sees these wealthy, luxury-loving, often overweight prelates putting their money where their mouths are and setting the example, it would be more believable!  But even then it would not make something sinful that was not sinful before.

  Are there, in fact, such things as “ecological sins”?  Not according to the Bible!  But an archbishop from Brazil named Pedro Brito Guimarâes spoke of “ecological sins” and added that although they may be something new, people needed to start confessing them![13]  So now the Papacy is creating new sins!  Things which were never sins before!  Here are the exact words from the final document of the Amazon Synod:

 “We propose to define ecological sin as an action or omission against God, against our neighbour, the community and the environment.  It is a sin against the future generations and is manifested in acts and habits of contamination and destruction of the harmony of the environment…”[14]

  Read that again: “We propose to define ecological sin…”  The Vatican has to propose such a thing, because never in all of history has such a “sin” existed before!  Rome is actually creating a new sin category, with absolutely no biblical support whatsoever!  Such is its supreme arrogance.  It does as it pleases, for its pope believes himself to be above God.

  To justify this nonsense in the minds of Roman Catholics, the president delegate of the Synod, a Jesuit cardinal named Pedro Barreto, said the formulation of “ecological sin” is “the expression of what we say in the creed of our faith: I believe in God the Father, Creator of Heaven and earth.  What happens is that we always say it without realizing it, and if God is Creator of Heaven and earth, we have to take care of what God has given us.  Therefore, this formulation has now been opened but, deep down, it’s something that was inherent, although we weren’t conscious of this ecological sin.”[15]

  Oh, they are devilishly clever, these Jesuits!  He knew that Romanists would be scratching their heads and saying, “But if this was a sin before, why didn’t we know about it?”  So he said in essence, “Oh, it was there all along, but we weren’t conscious of it.  Now we are, and we must stop committing it.”  And thus has Rome added a new sin to what God’s Word actually says sin is! 

  “Ecology is harmony,” said the Jesuit.  “Harmony with other brothers and sisters, and harmony with nature.”  And “when this harmonious relationship is broken it’s a sin.  Sin is to sever the relationship with God, to sever the relationship with brothers and to sever the relationship with nature.”  So then, if it is a sin, the poor benighted Roman Catholics will now have to go to the confessional box to confess it – a “sin” they never before knew they were committing!  What will they be required to confess?  Will they have to confess, and then perform some penance before receiving “absolution” from the priest, that they threw plastic away and failed to recycle?  Or perhaps that they drove a gas-guzzling car?  Or that they worked in the logging industry?  Or that they complained when some government environmentalist agency expropriated some private property to protect some supposedly endangered butterfly or frog species?  We wait with bated breath to see how this will pan out for Papists.  “Forgive me, father, for I have sinned.  I cut down an endangered tree on my plot.  Oh, and I went to a family reunion in my four-wheel-drive gas-guzzler.  Woe is me!  Oh my wicked, wicked carbon footprint!”

“Saving” the Amazon from Greedy Western Capitalists

  A nun who had participated in the Synod, Birgit Weiler of the Congregation of Medical Missionary Sisters, showed that she too had drunk deeply of liberation theology and the Green agenda, when she spoke of the “Church” needing to speak with a “prophetic voice” to address the health of the entire planet![16]

  She also said we need to welcome the culture of indigenous people and their vision of living in solidarity with the earth.  When we maltreat the earth, she claimed, we are maltreating ourselves as well. 

  Then she went on to parrot the usual refrain of liberation theologians and radical Greens: multinational corporations are all evil, trampling on the indigenous people. 

  The final document of the Synod stated: “All the participants expressed an acute awareness of the dramatic situation of destruction that affects Amazonia.  This means the disappearance of the territory and its inhabitants, especially the indigenous peoples.  The Amazonian forest is a ‘biological heart’ for the earth, which is increasingly threatened.  It finds itself in an unbridled race to death.  It requires radical changes with utmost urgency, a new direction that will enable it to be saved.”[17]

  This paragraph contains deliberate exaggeration of the true facts, in the typical style of radical environmentalists everywhere.  The vast territory of the Amazon is not disappearing.  The entire territory is not under threat of being destroyed.  There is no “race to death”.  Only certain sections of it are being destroyed, not the entire region.  But this kind of emotive language, they well know, is what stirs people up to support the “cause”.  And this is what they want.

  The document stated: “Greed for land is at the root of the conflicts that lead to ethnocide…. a good part of indigenous territories are without protection and those already demarked are being invaded by extractive fronts, such as mining, forest extraction, by great infrastructure projects, by illicit crops and by large estates that promote monoculture and extensive cattle raising.”[18]