Rorate Caeli

Pope names staunch pro-abortion and
pro-"gay marriage" scientist to Pontifical Academy of Sciences

A Brazilian reader calls our attention to the nomination, today, of Dr. Miguel Nicolelis, a Brazilian scientist and professor at Duke University, as a new ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In last year's presidential campaign in Brazil, Dr. Nicolelis backed the winning candidate, current President Dilma Rousseff, of the Workers' Party; that alone would not disqualify him from holding a position in a venerable Church institution. However, in his staunch support letter for the candidate, Dr. Nicolelis included the following astounding words, in criticism of the campaign which was being supposedly waged by the opponent of Ms. Rousseff:

"Going back to the American strategy of winning elections, in a second phase, in case the opponent survives the first round, one resorts another infallible weapon: the evident lack of Christian values of the opponent, manifested by her explicit acceptance of abortion; her sexual libertinage and lack of moral values, invariably linked to the ghost that haunts the tradition, family, and property of the hysterical right, represented by the as defamed as it is legitimate approval of the civil union of homosexual couples. Under this implacable steamroll, everything is related to victory, whatever it may cost, and it matters little to the Brazilian George Bush that thousands of humble and abandoned women die every year, in the hospitals and emergency rooms of Brazil, the victims of horrendous infections caused by clandestine abortions.
"George Bush, both the original one as well as the generic version of the tropics, probably knows several women of his class that, due to circumstances and vicissitudes of life, were forced to have abortions in well-equipped clinics, conducted by highly specialized professionals, paid very well for this procedure. Neither of both Georges Bushes, however, has ever been on duty in the emergency room of the Hospital of the Clinics of Sao Paulo and witnessed, with their own eyes and tears, the death of a teenager, victimized by generalized septicemia, caused by an illegal abortion, committed by some butcher posing as a doctor and a savior." [Tip and translation: reader; source: Universities for Dilma Blog]
Well, a Planned Parenthood spokesman could not have said it better.

27 comments:

Cruise the Groove said...

I am sure that Pope Benedict XVI would not knowingly appoint a pro-death and pro-sodomite man to this position.

Prof. Carlos Ramalhete said...

The words "tradition, family, and property" should be capitalised, as it refers to TFP (www.tfp.org - American TFP page, in English), a Catholic laymen organization, established by the famous Catholic thinker Dr. Plínio Corrêa de Oliveira, that helped the Brazilian gov't in its fight against the Communist terrorists in the Seventies. BTW, the new President was a terrorist then.
They lost the battle, but eventually came to power, and now TFP is treated by the mass-media and the gov't as if it had been a hateful extreme-right organization. They has even lost the right to use the very name "TFP", which was given by the courts to the Heralds of the Gospel, a splinter group. Nowadays they go by the name Instituto Plínio Corrêa de Oliveira (www.ipco.org.br - in Portuguese)
I do not have any link or association whatsoever with TFP, and I provide this information just so that the guy's words make sense.

New Catholic said...

Dear Prof. Ramalhete, thank you.

Yes, we are aware of the TFP, but it seems to have been a deliberate choice of Dr. Nicolelis in his article - in a word, trying to collude all "reactionary" forces under the common theme of a hysterical defense of tradition, family, and private property.

Best regards,

NC

Anonymous said...

We have this and we have had the mildly disappointing promotion of de Aviz yesterday. Before that, there was the very disappointing announceemnt about a new Assisi. Before that, the Pope's imprudent condom remarks. Before that, H.H. or someone close to him had the banners changed back to remove the tiara from his arms. The last of these, far from being a small symbolic change, is actually the most significant of all. Hardly anything could be worse than replacing the tiaria with a simple bishop's mitre on the Pope's personal arms. It amounts to a symbolic renunciation of his papal prerogatives. It is the heraldic way of saying: I am nothing more than a simple bishop--even an Anglican bishop, since only Anglican bishops use the mitre (ours use clerical hats). It is an heraldic surrender to the heresiarch Thomas Cranmer. In a day when heraldry was taken seriously, this change in arms would have resulted in the cardinals acting against the Pope and forcing him to reverse course or abdicate.

So what is going on here? Is Benedict XVI of two minds? Is the besuited Fr. Ratzinger of Vatican II doing battle with the Cardinal Ratzinger of the C.D.F.? We would all wish for a consistent policy of counter-revolution against these Marxist enemies of Jesus Christ. Why are we not getting it?

Again, the answer is that this Pope, like his predecessor, takes the view that the best way of fulfilling a divine mission to keep the Church united is to make concessions to both sides for the shorter term, so that the Church can be brought back to her correct course in the longer term. This is a matter of policy, I think, not one of compromise on doctrine.

These latest signals might also be a preparation for something the leftists will hate. In other words, give them a bone or two today to console them when all hell breaks loose tomorrow. The Bolsheviks in the Church, who still dominate the episcopate (especially here in Canada), will not want to see the archconservative Anglican-Catholics coming across to us, and they do not want any toleration for the T.L.M. What is likely coming is a clarification of S.P. that will fortify it and entrench the ancient Latin Mass. But I think that Benedict XVI may wish to go even further. I think that he may be planning to regularise the S.S.P.X or, at the very least, to recognise publicly and at law that its Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. Of course, to do this, he will need to exclude Williamson and isolate and/or exclude some of the Society's hardliners.

I read these bad initiatives differently than to do some people on this blog. I see them as a signal that something devastating is coming for the Left. The Pope is throwing candy canes at Marxists before he hands over the keys to the new Rolls Royce Silver Ghost to the traditionalists.

P.K.T.P.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Mr Perkins,

I'd like to think you are right in your prognostications, especially the one about regulariseing our brother Catholics in the FSSPX [we already have been told by competant authority that their Masses fulfill the obligation]
But I won't hold my breath.
after all, we heard that regularisation was imminent 2 years ago after the lifting of the excomm's.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Not a surprise. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, despite the name, is not restricted only to Catholic or even to believing scientists. Atheists and militant unbelievers have been appointed to it -- Stephen Hawking, for instance. The PAS "seeks to pay honour to pure science, wherever it is found, to assure its freedom and to promote its research", says the website of the Vatican City State.

Now, I, for one, think that this policy ought to change to exclude at least the more anti-Catholic scientists. Unfortunately, too many Catholics -- including Church leaders --still feel the need to be apologetic about the Church's historic relationship to scientists.

Jack said...

I don't know anyone who has ever been forced to have an abortion, though I've heard of teenagers whose parents took them to the chop shops against their wills.

However, I have seen with my own eyes ambulances pull up to the safe, legal abortuaries in my home town.

I have seen with my own eyes the reports from the health department citing them for having rats and roaches in their procedure rooms, and reusing disposable plastic cannulas and curettes.

And I have seen with my own eyes sworn testimonies from the managers of the abortion mills admitting that their physicians do not have insurance, hospital admitting privileges, board certification--and that they are paid in cash at the end of the day, as they work as independent contractors.

Aren't these standars up to the best back alleys?

Anonymous said...

I had a dream last night in which a huge tree was felled by a tremendous storm, and it fell destroying with it St. Peter's Basilica.

When I read this annoncement, I was more than alittle shocked. Very eerie, considering the Papal initiatives and appointments of recent days.

New Catholic said...

Quite true, Carlos, though it does not make it less sad.

Anonymous said...

Cruise the Groove said...
I am sure that Pope Benedict XVI would not knowingly appoint a pro-death and pro-sodomite man to this position.

So what are we to understand? Benedict XVI is a dolt? I think not.

Miki Tracy said...

Time to start letters to our Apostolic Nuncios....

Anonymous said...

Carlos, I'm not sure whether Catholicism is the best test of whether a scientist should be admitted to an Academy of Sciences.

But the consensus of scientists themselves have endorsed the principle that genocidal maniacs should be excluded from their deliberations.

Surely, we can draw a line at genocidal maniacs?

awatkins69 said...

They should at the very least appoint *believers* to the academy. The reason is not because believers have some stronger tendency to figuring out scientific problems, but that this pontifical academy releases very important statements on Church dogma, not only related to scientific issues, but also branching into such areas as abortion, homosexuality, materialism, etc. Maybe a neuroscientist will want to assert that someone is a person only when certain neural patterns show up. Or maybe a biologist will want to draw the conclusion from evolutionary theory that people are just bundles of matter. Their scientific opinion is important, but these people may have a hard time drawing the line between scientific opinion and philosophical bias.

Anonymous said...

What is this rot that proposes it is acceptable for a pope to make concessions to evil as a matter of "policy" and in order to fulfill his divine mandate to "keep the church united?" All those who hold the faith are Catholic and those who do not are outside the Catholic Church. She is always "united." Did Christ give the Pharisees a "bone" before calling them "whited sepulchers?" The Pope's job is to be faithful to the Person who is Truth itself, not play politics.

Anonymous said...

As Bishop Fellay has pointed out more than once in his talks, it is not permissible to commit even one venial sin in order to save the whole world. Is it permissible to hold up one pro-death/pro-sodomite man as respectable in order to pave the way for the regularization of the SSPX, for the good of the church? Absolutely not. The only result that can be hoped for from a policy of doling out "bones" to the right and then to the left is the progress of a drunken sailor.

Anonymous said...

Again, the question must be asked: if this "scientist" was advocating the euthanizing of Jews (or any other group), would he have been appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? Why do the Pope, the Vatican and our bishops treat abortion as if it is not murder?

Giles

Anonymous said...

If the Holy Father has appointed this man, he needs to come out with a statement as to why. The Holy Catholic church as we catholics know is riddled with scandal. The clery, starting with the Pope have to go the extra mile explaining things they normally would not have had to be concerned about. Our church cannot handle all the scandal without good "church teachings" catholics leaving in groves.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"So what are we to understand? Benedict XVI is a dolt? I think not."
Mr Anonymous,
No, I am not saying the Holy Father is a dolt at all.
It is quite possible that His Holiness was given misinformation about this man by an advisor.
It has happened before.

Ben Vallejo said...

As a scientist myself, let me inform readers here that religious belief or lack of it cannot be the main criterion for appointment to an Academy of Sciences, Pontifical or otherwise. The Pope is just the patron of the academy, not its President and as such has no business in directing science policy. The Pope has in his proper authority and teaching competence has always REMINDED the academy that they should not divorce their science from morals.

If we propose to make religious belief as a criterion, then I will have to propose we start the canonization process for Galileo Galilei! This pro-gay marriage Brazilian scientist is sure in need of Galileo's intercession!( Recall that Galileo never condoned schism nor, moral relativism )

Anonymous said...

If this scientist denied the Holocaust, he would not have been appointed. Period.

J Brown

Anonymous said...

Dear Cruise the Groove,

Obviously you missed the point - the appointment was probably intentional as Benedict XVI is a highly intelligent person that is in full control of the situation. Which also means more of the same rot we've been getting from the Vatican for the last forty plus years!

-Mr. Anonymous

Anonymous said...

There's no equivalency between "directing science policy" and requiring that appointees to a papal academy meet the minimum moral criteria of the sponsoring religious body. Let the man with anti-Christ morals do his science for another organization. His absence will be no loss for the Church or for science. As for the Pope's reminders, what he does is just as important as what he says, if not more so. Cross reference Christ on the Pharisees.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Vallejo:

Question: would Dr. Josef Mengele's presence within the Pontifical Academy of Science make no difference to you? Would you be arguing the same line of your previous comment?

Dr. Menegele believed in both abortion and euthanasia. He killed people to achieve his scientific investigations. How is this different from Miguel Nocolelis?

Please explain.

Giles

Anonymous said...

"If this scientist denied the Holocaust, he would not have been appointed. Period."

Very good point. The Holocaust is seen as the worst crime of humanity. It was of course heinous. All war is, but abortion and modern genocide in general is ignored. I don't think the Pope appointed him. Keep in mind that the Pope today does not have the same administrative powers that Boniface VIII wielded.

Ben Vallejo said...

Giles

Your baiting of a professional Catholic scientist is in extremely poor taste. But courtesy and Christian witness demand I reply to your question. Dr Mengele NEVER DID GOOD SCIENCE. The Nazi "racial science' he subscribed to is theoretical junk.

He would never been appointed to any academy of science worth its salt.

Prof. Carlos Ramalhete said...

New Catholic:
Not that it matters, but "tradição, família e propriedade", in Brazil, is simply TFP's name. Mutatis mutandis, is like an American saying "planned parenthood": he will hardly be referring to people who plan to become parents!
Dr. Nicolelis uses the TFP as a symbol of "the hysterical right", something quite common in the public discourse in Brazil.
In the last presidential campaign, IPCO's (the new name of TFP) participation in the campaign against Dilma Rousseff was treated by the newspapers as a proof that the other candidate was linked to the extreme-right.
Ironically, what passes for extreme-right in Brazilian politics is to the left of the American Democrats.
Our Lady Aparecida, deliver us from Communism!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Vallejo,

If you consider a civil question to your questionable logic as "baiting," it would seem to suggest that you possess a very thin skin (which, I have found, is not unusual in the vain and insular contemporary scientific community).

You have not answered the question, by the way. Since "good" science is your criteria for sitting on the Pontifical Academy for Science, I must assume, logically, that you consider the Brazilian doctor who advocates abortion, as a purveyor of "good science."

Absurd, Sir. Please cease embarrassing yourself (and get over yourself,as well).

Giles