Slaan oor na inhoud

ART 080 2015-08-09: Beplan die Vatikaan (en die Antichris) om miljarde mense vanaf Januarie 2016 uit te wis?

2015/08/09

www.sienervanrensburg.co.za
FH Pretorius,
Garsfontein,
Pretoria.

Iets wat my al meer opval is dat so baie van die dinge wat ek in vorige artikels aangespreek het besig is om sigbare vorm aan te neem.  En ek stel dit nie so om my eie beuel te blaas nie, maar wel om die basis van ons tydsberekening op datum te hou.  En dit is baie belangrik, want dit is al manier wat ons het om te probeer gereedmaak vir die toekoms wat al hoe vinniger na ons toe aankom.

Een van hierdie verwagte gebeure is die beplanning van die ‘Eugenics’ om stilweg in te gryp om die wêreldbevolking radikaal te verminder.  Nou, ons is skynbaar nie die onmiddellike teiken van hierdie spesifieke groep nie, maar dit raak ons wel omdat so ‘n poging op ‘n sekere stadium buite beheer kán raak en ons daarby kan insuig.  Soos dit is sal ons op die heel minste betrokke wees by die wegwerk van die hope en hope lyke wat so ‘n aanslag sal agterlaat.

Maar ons moet hier ook verstaan dat die ‘vyand’ uit verskillende faksies bestaan, en ons volk is inderdaad die teiken van een so ‘n groep.  Ondervinding het nou al geleer dat hierdie groep uit Engelse adelikes van Normandiese afkoms bestaan.  Hulle het oor die eeue die Xhosas en die Zulus teen ons ingespan, maar dit het misluk.  Hulle kon ons ook nie uitwis in die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog nie en hul planne om ons kultuur daarna te vernietig het ook nie uitgewerk nie.  Hierdie mense probeer tans weer om ons deur die swartes te laat uithaal, maar Siener se visioene dui aan dat ook hierdie poging nie werklik van die grond af gaan kom nie.  Hy het in hierdie verband gepraat van ‘n swart kryger wat baie dreigend teenoor ons opstaan, maar net voor hy op ons kan toeslaan verdwyn hy agter ‘n misnewel.  Hy word dus weggeneem deur ‘n groter en Hoër krag, wat onafhanklik van ons en buite ons beheer funksioneer. Die swartes word na my mening die teiken van ‘n ander vyandelike faksie wat op hul beurt ander planne met ons volk het.  Dit is hierdie groep wat ek glo die swartes gaan uitmoor met biologiese wapens, en dan gaan hulle ‘n burgeroorlog in Noordwes en die Noord-Vrystaat aanstig en gebruik om ons te probeer verkneg.

Maar nou ja, die inligting wat besig is om deur te kom is dat hierdie ‘Eugenics’ die wêreldbevolking so gou moontlik met sowat 6 miljard mense wil verminder!  En die teiken is hoofsaaklik die Derde-wêreld bevolking, oftewel die sogenaamde ‘modderrasse’.  Ek sal op ‘n latere stadium miskien meer hieroor sê, maar soos ek dit verstaan sluit dit almal in wat nie deel van die suiwer Ariese [of Kaukasiese] ras is nie.  As die Bybelse gegewens hieroor korrek is kan ons aflei dat daar twee blanke rasse langsmekaar in die wêreld is, naamlik Jafet (Ariërs) en ook die nakomelinge van Sem, wat die Kelte insluit, wat natuurlik óók blankes is.  Die Boervolk se stamouers het almal van gebiede in Europa af gekom wat nou nog deur Kelte bewoon word!  Die Ariërs, waaruit die sogenaamde Europese en Amerikaanse ‘elite’ (royalty) voortgekom het, wil juis die Kelte aan hul heerskappy en donker plesiere onderwerp.  Hulle wil slawe hê, en enigeen met sulke idees sal eerder die hoër IK van die gemiddelde Semiet of Kelt verkies bokant die laer vlakke vêrder weg van hierdie lyn af.  [En wat maak mense dink dat die Semiete nie blankes is nie?  Mense is geneig om alle sogenaamde ‘moderne’ Semiete te wil meet aan die Arabiere en die Askenaziese kleurlinge wat tans as Jode deurgaan, maar dit is ‘n groot denkfout!  Paulus se sendbriewe was dan juis aan ‘n Keltiese gehoor gerig gewees, en hulle vertoon nou nog al die fisiese eienskappe van die blanke ras!]

Die Indiërs is byvoorbeeld van Kaukasiese afkoms, want hulle is ‘n mengsel van Ariërs en Aborigines wat duisende jare gelede in die Indus Vallei (Hindu Kush) ontstaan het.  Die Ariërs het ‘n paar eeue lank daar oorgestaan op hul trek vanaf die noordelike hange van die Himalajaberge na die Kaspiese see en uiteindelik daarvandaan na Europa.  Hul twee hoofstede was Mohenjo-daro en Harappa.  As ek reg verstaan was hul staatkundige gesag by Harappa geleë, terwyl Mohenjo-dara die geestelike hoofstad was waar hul nasionale ‘godin’ se tempel was.  Haar Sumeriese naam was Inanna gewees, en sy staan in ander gebiede onder andere bekend as Ishtar en Venus.  Hierdie Ariërs het hul [oorspronklike] Hindoegeloof by hul gekleurde nasate in Pakistan nagelaat toe hulle verder na die Kaspiese see getrek het.  Die Indiërs het dit oor tyd verander en aangepas tot die moderne Hindoegeloof, en vandag is dit die derde grootste geloofsgroep ter wêreld met bykans een miljard lede.  Die Perse van Iran en Afghanistan het ook uit hierdie Ariërs ontstaan, en daarom trek so baie van hulle so sterk op die blanke.

Die Indiërs, Iranese en Afghane is egter óók geoormerk om uitgewis te word, want hulle is per definisie nie suiwer Ariërs nie.  Hul getalle is verder ook heeltemal te hoog vir hulle om te mág voortbestaan, want getallegewys is byvoorbeeld al die Indiërs saam net maar ‘n kortkoppie agter die Sjinese! Ek begin ook al meer besef dat so ‘n moordaanslag hier by ons waarskynlik saam met ‘n swart-op-swart revolusie uitgevoer sal word om die beginstadiums van so ‘n biologiese aanslag te verdoesel.  Ek begin ook al meer glo dat die Engelse militêre mag, wat hier sal wees as Siener se verhaal begin, deel sal vorm van so ‘n aanslag op die swartes in Afrika suid van die Sahara.  Dit word al hoe duideliker dat hulle hierheen sal kom om Britse belange te beskerm, want die ANC is baie besig met planne om die mynbedryf in ons land te nasionaliseer.  Genls. Louis Botha en Jan Smuts het destyds oor hul voete geval om die eiendomsreg van ons minerale en edelgesteentes na die Britse veroweraars oor te dra, en die Engelse sal dit wil beskerm.  Dit is bo en behalwe die feit dat ek glo dat ons daardie oorlog gewen het, maar dat hierdie twee verraaiers die Boere beïnvloed het om te glo en te aanvaar dat hulle dit verloor het.  Die Engelse het ons dus nog al die jare leeg gesuig op grond van ‘n baie groot en blatante leuen!

Maar so het ek reeds vroeg in 2009 in Art 029; Art 031 en Art 032 aangevoer dat daar so ‘n aanslag beplan word.  En so het dit dan ook in die onlangse verlede aan die lig begin kom dat die Vatikaan duidelik betrokke kan wees hierby.

Wat is die bewyse hiervoor?

Ek sal die eerste wees wat toegee dat daar oënskynlik geen direkte bewyse vir so iets is nie, en ook dat daar nooit so iets aangekondig sal word nie.  Maar daar is wel duidelike tekens hiervan, en een daarvan is die Vatikaan se ongelooflike blatante dubbelspraak oor hierdie saak! Die uitsprake wat die Pous maak sê een ding, maar die dinge wat hy stilweg doen wys op presies die teenoorgestelde.  Ek heg soos gewoonlik die bewyse vir wat ek beweer aan onderaan die artikel. Twee hiervan is dalk ‘n bietjie lank, maar dit gee darem ook ‘n groter en baie volledige prentjie van wat ek hier sê.

Ek het in elk geval oor die strekwydte van ‘n hele paar artikels aangevoer dat die Antichris se naam waarskynlik op 24 September 2015 deur die Pous bekend gemaak sal word.  Hy spreek op daardie dag ‘n gesamentlike sitting van die Amerikaanse wetgewende gesag toe, en dit sal die ideale geleentheid daarvoor wees.  Hy open egter ook die dag daarna die VVO se sitting waartydens ‘n plan onderteken sal word om armoede in die wêreld uit te wis.  Hierdie vergadering is geskeduleer vir 25 en 26 September 2015, en wat dit op neerkom is dat die staatshoofde van die wêreld hul gesag op daardie vergadering aan een enkele persoon sal wegteken.  Hy sal, met ander woorde, ‘n superleier word, want hy word letterlik aangestel as die staatshoof van staatshoofde, oftewel ‘n koning oor die konings van die aarde.

Nou, iets wat my persoonlik verwonderd laat is die geheimsinnige voorkoms van ‘n speling van twee dae in my [persoonlike] belewenisse wat vanaf Februarie 2012 aanleiding gegee het tot my identifisering van die koms van die Antichris.  Ek kan nie sê of die twee dae ook in hierdie geval sal voorkom nie, ek sal moet wag en sien, maar ek is bereid om te aanvaar dat sy naam minstens tussen 24 tot 25 September bekend gemaak sal word.  Ek wil nie te vêr hiermee gaan nie, want ek weet nie wat dit kan beteken en of dit werklik enige waarde dra nie, maar hier is ook ‘n moontlike speling van twee dae teenwoordig as die gebeure dan aan die een of ander verhewe soort simboliek moét voldoen.

Die eerste keer waar ek spesifiek na die Antichris verwys het was Art. 065 wat op 19 Augustus 2012 gepubliseer is.  Dit was meer as twee jaar vóórdat die eerste verwysings en koppelinge tussen hom en 24 September op die internet begin uitslaan het.  Die verwysings na die koms van die Antichris en die datum van [‘n] 24 September het dan ook baie prominent voorgekom in die reeks artikels wat voortgevloei het uit my baie vreemde droom van 26 Februarie 2012.  Hierdie reeks bestaan uit Artikels 065, 067, 068, 070, 071, 072 en ook 079.

Wat vandag se artikel as uitbreiding op vorige artikels betref wil ek die leser eerstens daarop wys dat die Vatikaan ‘n baie sterk standpunt handhaaf rondom die toepassing van geboortebeperking.  Hulle weier om dit goed te keur, want hulle sê die Bybel wil hê dat die mensdom moet vermeerder en die aarde vul.  Nou, die onderwerp is nou wel taboe in die Roomse kerk, maar die toepassing van geboortebeperking vind egter lagwekkend vrylik plaas in die ontwikkelde en ryker Roomse gemeenskappe, soos die VSA, Kanada en die noordelike deel van Europa.  Maar JA! die Vatikaan is baie sterk uitgesproke teen bevolkingsbeheer. Aanhangsel 3 dra meer inligting hieroor, maar dit gee ook aan ons ‘n fassinerende kykie van wat agter die teologiese skerms van die Vatikaan aangaan … en wat ‘n siek klug is hierdie teologiese werkinge nie!

Iets wat baie interessant is hier is dat die Pous se besoek aan die VSA in 2015 ook die opening van ‘n konferensie insluit wat daarop gemik is om die welsyn en voorspoed van die Roomse gesinslewe te bevorder.  Hy open hierdie geleentheid in Philadelphia kort voor hy die Amerikaanse wetgewer op 24 September 2015 toespreek [En niemand weet skynbaar waarom hy dit gaan doen en waaroor hy gaan praat nie!]  Ek dink ons kan aanvaar dat hy die Roomse standpunt oor geboortebeperking in Philadelphia sal herhaal, maar ek dink dat dit ook maar net iets soos ‘krokodiltrane’ sal wees, want dit is eintlik ‘n baie groot leuen waarmee hy besig is.  Maar dit is nie die gebeure wat belangrik is vir vandag se artikel nie, want die Pous sal ook ‘n vergadering in Desember 2015 in Parys, Frankryk bywoon waarop metodes bespreek sal word om die vrye aanwas in mense daadwerklik te begin beheer.  Hierdie vergadering kan op geen manier losgemaak word van die twee in September 2015 nie! Hierdie beplanning en die Antichris sal direk aanmekaar gekoppel word deur die Pous se betrokkenheid by die bekamping van armoede en ook die ‘bevordering’ van die gesinslewe.

Die Roomse kerk, soos enige ander groot staatsorganisasie, het ‘n manier om op die diplomatieke vlak deur ‘proxies’ te werk, want dit stel hulle in staat om agteraf op vlakke op te tree waar hulle nie openlik betrokke kan raak nie.  Die president van die VSA sal byvoorbeeld op geen manier iemand doodmaak nie, maar die CIA kan dit stilweg namens hom doen. Die Pous kan insgelyks ook nie ‘n oorlog tussen twee lande begin nie, maar die Jesuïete kan, en hulle het blykbaar al in die verlede.  Die leser sal meer oor hierdie beginsel kan lees in die drie aanhangsels.

Die baie belangrike punt hier is dat die Vatikaan, wat in die openbaar so erg teen geboortebeperking gekant is, in werklikheid ook so stilweg die grootste dryfkrag agter die absolute en kragdadige instelling en toepassing daarvan is! [Sien Aanhangsel 1, 2 en 3]

Die Pous praat ongebreidelde bevolkingsaanwas goed in die openbaar, maar hy nooi ook uitgesproke ondersteuners van geboortebeperking en selfs aborsie om op sy berade te kom optree en hul gedagtes te propageer.  En ja, die Pous is geskeduleer om in Desember 2015 juis oor hierdie onderwerp in Parys, Frankryk op te tree.

Hoe moet ‘n mens hierdie kloutjie by die oor kry?   Dit is juis hierdie soort dubbelspraak wat maak dat kommentators sê dat die VVO se vergadering rondom volhoubare groei in September 2015, saam met hierdie konferensie oor bevolkingsbeheer in Desember 2015, bloot ‘n rookskerm is om veel erger dinge stilweg in werking te stel!  Want dit is nie net ‘n paar relatief onbekende wetenskaplikes wat deel van hierdie berade en komitees vorm nie, maar soos die berig in Aanhangsel 2 hieronder aantoon, onder andere ook twee van die top-top name by die VVO.  Sien ons dalk hier hoe ‘n sluipmoordaanslag op 6 miljard mense, saam met die aanstelling van die Antichris, so stilweg besig is om vorm aan te neem?

Groete,
Frik Pretorius

————————————————————————————-

AANHANGSEL 1:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/pope-francis-appoints-population-control-extremist-to-vatican-post/

POPE FRANCIS APPOINTS POPULATION CONTROL EXTREMIST TO VATICAN POST

A scientist who believes the world is overpopulated by 6 billion people has been appointed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Academy of Science.

The Holy See Press office made the announcement today that besides being one of four official presenters of the Pope’s controversial encyclical on the environment Thursday in Vatican City, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is to join 80 other scientists who are official advisers to the Vatican on scientific matters.

As Breitbart News reported last week, Schellnhuber said in a 2009 speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference that global warming would devastate Earth’s population and “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 plantet, namely below 1 billion people.”

Schellnhuber is the inventor of something called the “two-degree target” that says governments must not allow global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees than at the start of the industrial revolution. Any higher and there would be a global die-off.

Breitbart also reported that Schellnhuber proposes an Earth Constitution, Global Council and a Planetary Court to punish environmental wrongdoers.

Schellnhuber is considered to be one of the most “aggressive” scientific advocates for the theory of man-made global warming. That he is one of the main presenters of the new Papal document, and now has been given an official Vatican post by the Pope is a tip-off that the much-awaited and debated encyclical will give climate skeptics a dangerous fever.

————————————————————————————-

AANHANGSEL 2:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/vatican-hosts-two-leading-pro-abortion-population-control-activists-at-clim

Vatican hosts two leading pro-abortion, population control activists at climate conference

April 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Two of the world’s leading pro-abortion advocates were addressing a Vatican workshop on the environment today.

At the same time, a press conference at the Palazzo Cesi, in Rome, organised by the Heartland Institute, was addressed by two leading SPUC officials on behalf of Voice of the Family, warning that the population control lobby was advancing its agenda by means of the workshop held today by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences.

The following statement was delivered by Patrick Buckley, UN envoy of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, who was joined in Rome by Maria Madise, SPUC’s international manager and manager of Voice of the Family:

Voice of the Family statement on the workshop “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development” held at the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, 28th May 2015 

We wish to express our grave concern at the presence of Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, at the Vatican workshop Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development held by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences (PAS), Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and Religions for Peace on April 28th 2015 in anticipation of the new papal encyclical on the environment.

Ban Ki Moon and Professor Jeffrey Sachs are noted advocates of abortion who operate at the highest levels of the United Nations.

The Vatican workshop aims to “raise awareness and build a consensus that the values of sustainable development cohere with values of the leading religious traditions, with a special focus on the most vulnerable.”

Unfortunately, pro-life and pro-family advocates who lobby at the UN have witnessed the environmental issues become an umbrella to cover a wide spectrum of attacks on human life and the family. These attacks pose an immediate threat to the lives of the most vulnerable – the unborn, the disabled and the elderly – as well as grave violations of parental rights.

In light of the attacks on innocent human life witnessed at the UN under the guise of environmental concerns, we are troubled to note the Vatican workshop’s desire “to help build a global movement across all religions for sustainable development and climate change throughout 2015 and beyond”. This timetable exactly coincides with the negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the UN, which include strong attacks on life and family. The SDG agenda will determine the direction and financial aid for the third world countries for the next 15 years.

Understandably the population control, pro-abortion lobby must be feeling very much empowered by the influence being exercised in the Vatican by two of the culture of death’s leading figures, Ban Ki Moon and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, especially just before the publication of an encyclical on the environment.

Ban Ki-Moon, who is one of the main speakers at the workshop at the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, has on many occasions promoted the so-called “right” to abortion worldwide. (1) He also issued a controversial new report this year on sexual violence in conflict zones, which was critical of the lack of “safe abortion” in many conflict situations. The directive openly defies the consensus at the UN that abortion is an issue that should be left to individual nations.

Dr Jeffrey Sachs, who is also addressing the meeting, is a well-known international proponent of population control and abortion. (2) Sachs is one of the architects of the millennium development goals and a member of the Executive Board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The Network has proposed draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which contain provisions that are radically antagonistic to the right to life from conception to natural death, to the rights and dignity of the family and to the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children.

Our concerns relate specifically to Goals 4 and 5.

Goal 4 is to “achieve gender equality, social inclusion, and human rights for all”. The call for an end to preventable deaths of infants and children under the age of 5 excludes unborn children, despite the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child in its preamble recognises that “The child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

Goal 4d, which states “Ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights” is completely unacceptable. Such language is routinely used by the international pro-abortion and population control lobby to refer to the legalization of abortion on demand and access for children, without parental knowledge or consent, to abortion and birth control drugs and devices in countries throughout the world. (3)

Goal 5, “Achieve Health and Wellbeing at all ages”, also includes a reference to sexual and reproductive health and family planning. (4)

In the light of all that has been said, it will be clear why Catholic families all over the world are greatly concerned that Vatican institutions may embrace the language of the United Nations, which, on the surface, speaks of protecting the environment while in reality providing cover for an anti-life and anti-family agenda. Any discussion on the environment must stem from understanding that the family, defined correctly, is the key to sustainable development, particularly at this time when the Synod on the Family has been called by Pope Francis to consider problems facing the family.

The family according to article 16.3 of the Universal Declaration (1948) is the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

Furthermore, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the post-2015 development agenda must take account of the family; this is, in fact, recognised by the UN Secretary General’s 2011 Family Report. (5)

Accordingly, Voice of the Family proposes that the SDGs should contain a goal to strengthen the family and include realistic targets in that regard.

The holding of this vitally important conference in the Vatican at this crucial time in-between the two family synods and in the lead-up to the publication of the Sustainable Development Goals, and with the participation of these leading international pro-abortion advocates, is all the more worrying in the light of the most recent statement of Hillary Clinton saying, effectively, that opposition to abortion must cease to exist, even in the teaching of the Church.

We wish to place on record our view that, in any international agreement concerning the future of the human family, it is indispensable to assert the obligation for states to provide for the legal protection of the right to life of every human being from the moment of conception until natural death and to uphold the family as the fundamental group unit of society.

Footnotes

(1) In September 2010 at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and Navanethem Pillay, the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, launched a report “on discrimination against women, in law and practice, and how the issue is addressed throughout the United Nations human rights system”. In that report they called for the policing of nations worldwide to “address the refusal of physicians to perform legal abortions”

(2) In his book Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet Paperback – 26 Mar 2009 which deals with “global warming, poverty, war, deforestation and mass extinctions”, Sachs argues for legalised abortion.

(3) For example, in a speech on October 12th 2009, Wellington Webb, appointed by Barack Obama as special adviser to the US mission to the United Nations, confirmed that the Obama administration will be promoting legalised abortion throughout the world, targeting adolescents in a worldwide abortion drive. The ambassador was speaking at the UN’s 15th anniversary commemoration of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). His speech expressly committed the US government to promoting “access to reproductive health commodities and services for adolescents”. Webb stated: “President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice have all underscored the strong support of the United States for human rights, women’s rights and reproductive rights as well as universal access to reproductive health and family planning”.

Hillary Clinton, Obama’s appointee as US Secretary of State, had already made it clear that when the US government speaks of reproductive health, it’s a term which includes access to abortion. In April, 2009, Hillary Clinton told Congressman Chris Smith at a hearing of the US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee “We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion … ”

(4) http://unsdsn.org/resources/goals-and-targets/

(5) “The majority of the Millennium Development targets, especially those relating to the reduction of poverty, education of children and reduction in maternal mortality, are difficult to attain unless the strategies to achieve them focus on the family.” (SG Family Report 2011 (A/66/62–E/2011/4)

“The stability and cohesiveness of communities and societies largely rest on the strength of the family.” (SG Family Report 2011 (A/66/62–E/2011/4)

————————————————————————————-

AANHANGSEL 3:

http://www.population-security.org/phil95.htm

Introduction […by George Kelley]

“In 1830 there were one billion people on the planet. By 1930 there were two billion, and by 1960 there were three billion. Today [1969] the world population stands at three and one-half billion persons. One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause of pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization.
“When future generations evaluate the record of our time, one of the most important factors in their judgment will be the way in which we respond to population growth. Let us act in such a way that those who come after us—even as they lift their eyes beyond Earth’s bounds—can do so with pride in the planet on which they live, with gratitude to those who lived on it in the past, and with continuing confidence in the future.”

In the 27 years that have elapsed since President Nixon delivered this message to Congress, the World’s population has expanded from three and one half billion to nearly six billion and its growth rate is essentially unchanged. Uncontrolled population growth is a primary cause of the worst problems that face the world today, including the degradation of the environment, the destruction of natural habitat and permanent loss of countless species along with it, malnutrition and starvation, widespread unemployment, poverty, and social unrest resulting in national and international conflict. The overall result is a general undermining of our humanitarian values. The time to commence serious action has long since past. Only through our awareness and commitment to world population growth control can society hope to save itself from the traditional regulators of human overpopulation—war, pestilence and starvation.
I am very pleased to introduce as our speaker this morning, Dr. Stephen Mumford who heads the Center for Research on Population and Security and has traveled from Chapel Hill, North Carolina to be with us today. Dr. Mumford is a leading researcher and writer on population issues, having published six books and 89 articles on the subject. For the past 26 years he has spent a large portion of his time working on population issues in developing countries. Dr. Mumford will discuss the pivotal role of the Catholic Church hierarchy in thwarting efforts to alleviate the world population crisis. While I do not believe that there will be time during the service to ask him questions, I encourage anyone who is interested in his message and who may wish to exchange comments to meet with us afterwards.

Presentation by Stephen D. Mumford
George Kelley read to you a remarkable passage of a message to Congress by President Nixon in 1969. At that time, America seemed to have the political will to deal with the overpopulation problem. But within five years that will began to weaken.
Here today, we can bear witness only to our government’s aversion to population control. Why have we come to this sad state of affairs?
The Cairo Population Conference 18 months ago was a turning point. Until then, it was not widely known that the Catholic Church, as directed by its hierarchy in the Vatican, was a principle force in opposing population growth control. Any effort by the Vatican to conceal its staunch opposition was abandoned when the Holy See shut down the meeting for the first six days. Everyone was stunned.

  • Few believed that the Vatican woulddo this.
  • Few believed that the Vatican coulddo this.
  • The big question is whythe Vatican did it?

At the last International Population Conference, convened in Mexico City in 1984, the Vatican was not forced to take such overt action to achieve its goals. Conservative Catholic James Buckley led a largely conservative Catholic delegation to Mexico City to represent the United States. They took the Vatican position on abortion and family planning and helped to impose it on the conference. The Vatican thereby avoided the need to place itself directly in the way of progress on this vital issue. [my beklemtoning]

The Vatican desperately wanted the policy established in Mexico City to be retained after the Cairo conference. But it lacked the powerful U.S. delegation to support it this time.
Why is the Vatican so anxious to impose its will on the world of Catholics and non-Catholics alike when it comes to this issue?
First, let me say that we are talking about the Catholic hierarchy—priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope—not the laity. It is well known that American Catholic lay people do not differ from non-Catholics in the use of contraception and abortion.

The eminent Catholic theologian, Hans Küng, best described the situation when he wrote: we cannot solve the problem of contraception until we solve the problem of infallibility.
What is infallibility? What did Dr. Küng mean?
Infallibility is a Catholic dogma—a Catholic teaching—a principle. As you know, according to Catholic dogma, the pope is God’s representative on earth and God guides him as he cares for his flock. When the pope formulates a teaching, he is simply transmitting this teaching on God’s behalf. Therefore, the teaching cannot possibly be in error. Thus, his teachings are infallible.

This principle was not created until 1870, the very year when the pope lost all temporal power with the creation of the country of Italy. Up to that moment, the Vatican was still executing so-called heretics, people whom it viewed as posing a threat to papal power. But suddenly this source of power was gone.
The Vatican urgently needed a new source of power. It could no longer control the laity by means of its governance, as it had in the papal states which would later become Italy. But it could control the laity directly by adopting a policy of psychological coercion founded on a new doctrine—that of papal infallibility.
This was a brilliant concept—and it worked—for a century. But at its introduction in 1870, the Catholic intelligentsia, among them theologians, historians and bishops, recognized that at some point in the future, this principle would lead to self-destruction of the institution.
Why? Because they recognized that times were certain to change—and in unpredictable ways. This principle would lock the Church into an inexorable course—teachings that could not be changed without destroying the principle of infallibility itself.
These thoughtful Catholics foresaw that this principle would immediately become the fundamental principle of the Catholic Church, upon which all other Catholic dogma would rest—the very foundation of the Church.
They understood that if this principle were undermined and destroyed at some future date, all Church teachings would collapse around the eroded foundation and the institution itself would be devastated.

They were convinced that one day, encumbered by her unchangeable teachings, the Church would find itself down a blind alley from which there would be no escape—and faced with inevitable self-destruction as a result of a grave loss of credibility. These distinguished scholars were strongly opposed to this principle and many left the Church.  The blind alley turned out to be the issue of birth control. [my beklemtoning]

They could not imagine the population explosion of the last half of this century. As it stands now, the Church cannot change its teaching on birth control without undermining all of its teachings. The Vatican must protect the fundamental doctrine of papal infallibility at all costs. [my beklemtoning]

We all know that the Catholic Church has lost much of its credibility, authority and claim to moral leadership as it has stonewalled any serious solutions to the population problem. The 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae ruled out any change of the Church’s position on birth control for all time.
Since the adoption of Humanae Vitae, 28 years ago, there has been a hemorrhage in the Church’s credibility, just as the intellectual leaders of the Church predicted in 1870. And self-destruction is now well under way.
This morning, I will give you three examples of this erosion but there are scores of others.

  • In 1965 there were 42,000 young men in American seminaries studying for the priesthood. Today there are fewer than 6,000 even though there are 50% more Catholics.
  • The average age of nuns in the United States is 65 years. Only 3% are under age 40 while 35% are older than 70.
  • One-half of all American priests quit the priesthood before reaching retirement age.

Self-destruction as a result of loss of credibility is underway but progressing slowly. The Pope still has hope that he can turn this around. We know that he is convinced that if he changes the Church’s position on birth control and destroys the principle of infallibility, self-destruction will be very swift.
We know that this matter was the focus of his attention for several years in the 1960s.

In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control which met from 1964 to 1966. It was a two-part commission. One consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal.
Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church can change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority.

After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority—but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change. We know this because one or more commission members released the details without permission to an Italian and a French newspaper. Pope Paul did not act immediately. A minority report was prepared, co-authored by the man who is now Pope John Paul II.

In this report he said:
“If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XII’s address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.
“This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.”

In 1980, years after he became pope, John Paul wrote to the German bishops:
I am convinced that the doctrine of infallibility is in a certain sense the key to the certainty with which the faith is confessed and proclaimed, as well as to the life and conduct of the faithful. For once this essential foundation is shaken or destroyed, the most basic truths of our faith likewise begin to break down.”
In these two texts, the pope took the position that a change on the birth control issue would destroy the principle of papal infallibility and that infallibility was the fundamental principle of the Church upon which all else rests.

The principle of infallibility must be protected at all costs. The security-survival of the papacy itself is on the line.

[MY NOTA HIER: dalk die rede waarom Antichris op 24 Sept 2015 oor regerings aangestel moét word; om Civil Law te omseil en die Pous se magsposisie te waarborg?]
Civil law, which legalizes contraception and abortion undermines papal authority. The Church insists that only it can determine what is moral. By passing these civil laws, governments are challenging the prerogative of the pope to be the ultimate authority on what is moral. Because most Americans look to democratic process to determine morality, the authority of the pope is threatened by this process. In the simplest analysis, the Church cannot coexist with such an arrangement, which in its view, threatens the very survival of the papacy as a world power.
My views in these matters have been influenced primarily by three Catholic writers: theologian Hans Küng, historian Bernhard Hasler and sociologist Jean-Guy Vaillancourt.
The same year that the encyclical Humanae Vitae was issued—1968— Richard Nixon was elected president. Nixon felt very strongly about the population problem. Public awareness of this problem and political commitment to deal with it was just beginning to peak.
In March 1970, Nixon created the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. The task of this Commission was to make a series of recommendations that could be used to formulate a comprehensive population policy for the United States.

After two years of intensive study, the Commission made more than 70 recommendations. The report had the makings of an outstanding population policy. Two of the recommendations were that contraception and abortion would be made available to all who wanted them, at government expense, if necessary.
1972 was a presidential election year and President Nixon was facing a difficult campaign, so when the report was presented to him on May 5, 1972, six months before Americans would go to the polls, Nixon sharply condemned its most important recommendations.

Nothing ever came of this report. Not one recommendation was ever adopted. To this day the U.S. does not have a population policy.
According to the chairman of the Commission, John D. Rockefeller 3rd, and Commission member, Congressman James Scheuer of New York, the President was convinced that the Catholic bishops, who were hostile to the report, had the power to upset his bid for reelection.
This report never saw the light of day again.
But Nixon did make another bold move. Despite the intense opposition of the Catholic hierarchy that he encountered in the wake of his population commission, Nixon’s assessment of the gravity of world overpopulation problem remained unchanged.
In April 1974, in National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), he directed that a comprehensive study be undertaken to determine the “implications of world population growth for U.S. security and overseas interests.”
He ordered that this study be undertaken by all the departments and agencies of the government that had significant intelligence gathering capabilities. This included The National Security Council, the CIA, the Defense, Agriculture and State Departments, and the Agency for International Development.
Before the study was completed in July 1975, President Nixon had lost his job. However, his successor, Gerald Ford, recognized the importance of this study. Both the findings and recommendations are as relevant today as they were in 1975.
Because of the constraint of time I can only cite a few of the findings from this remarkable report:
“There is a major risk of severe damage [from continued rapid population growth] to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.” [Executive Summary of the NSSM 200 Report, page 10]
“. . . World population growth is widely recognized within the Government as a current danger of the highest magnitude calling for urgent measures . . .” [Page 194 of the NSSM 200 Report]
“. . . population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. [Page 66]
“Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence.” [Page 69]
“In developing countries, the burden of population factors, added to others, will weaken unstable governments, often only marginally effective in good times, and open the way to extremist regimes.” [Page 84]

This report predicted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the United States-Iraq war and pointed out that the cost of such a conflict will far exceed the costs of decades of worldwide population growth control. The report also predicted the civil wars in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia and numerous other population driven hostilities of the past 20 years.
The report offers numerous recommendations. The following few excerpts will give you an idea of the concern expressed by the departments and agencies which conducted the studies:

“Our objective should be to assure that developing countries make family planning information, education and means available to all their peoples by 1980.” [Page 130]
“. . . intense efforts are required to assure full availability by 1980 of birth control information and means to all fertile individuals, especially in rural areas.” [Executive Summary, page 9]
“While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000. . . . Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. . . . U.S. leadership is essential.”[Executive Summary, page 14]
“— No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion” [Page 182]— Indeed, abortion, legal and illegal, now has become the most widespread fertility control method in use in the world today. . . . [Page 183]
“— It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques . . . .”[Page 185]
NSSM 200 was an astounding report prepared by leading cabinet level agencies.
Its conclusion: overpopulation threatens American security and the security of all nations. Overpopulation is a more serious threat than nuclear conflagration.
On November 26, 1975, the 227-page report and its recommendations were endorsed by President Ford. However, none of them were ever implemented. The Vatican moved swiftly to intervene, and all efforts were very quietly subverted.
On November 20, 1975, six days before Ford endorsed the recommendations, the U.S. Catholic bishops adopted a plan to build a political machine with the stated goal of passing a human rights amendment to the Constitution. This plan, which is represented by a printed document, describes the creation of the new right movement, including the Moral Majority. Within a period of only four years, almost the entire new right movement had been created. More recently, the bishops were the moving force behind the creation of the Christian Coalition to replace the Moral Majority, which had fallen into public disrepute.
Many documented details of the Vatican intervention in the implementation of the NSSM 200 recommendations are described in my last three books. Given that the very survival of the papacy is on the line, the Vatican has taken extraordinary steps to halt any and all local and global initiatives to promote population growth control activities.
I believe that this grave conflict between the well documented efforts by the papacy to preserve its power and influence, and the security-survival interests of our country and the entire world, is the most important story of the last half of the 20th century. This incredible story is going untold.
While we would wish that everyone could see the urgency of finding acceptable methods for controlling the world’s population growth, I recognize that there are some whose religious beliefs and attitudes may never allow them to accommodate their beliefs to such needs.
However, it remains for the rest of us who live in a democratic and pluralistic society to understand the forces that undermine and block a free and honest exchange of ideas on this subject—forces that now prevent us from implementing humane solutions to this most fundamental problem.
Only by understanding these forces can they be dealt with effectively, and progress be made toward attaining a sustainable population for our planet.
Thank you for letting me share these thoughts with you this morning.

————————————————————————————-

 

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Die kommentaar is gesluit.

%d bloggers like this: