Laudato Si - Addressing A Non-Existent Problem At Best, Advancing One-World Government At Worst

The pope's much ballyhooed encyclical is scheduled to be released next week.  There are reports that it has already been named "Laudato Si" (taken from St. Francis' "Canticle of the Sun").  We don't know what the thing contains, although the players involved give us a good idea of its main thrust.  As stated last month, this encyclical has significant progressive input, most notably from abortion advocate Jeffrey Sachs.  I link now to an anthology of posts that I've written that detail the malevolence of his beliefs.  The first post that appears when you click the link details the report that came from the meeting in late April hosted by both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.  Please note the explicit call for population control.  Further down, you'll see a video by American Life League that exposes more of the harm wrought by Sachs.

A few weeks ago LifeSiteNews put forth a piece to ask why Sachs, given the information set forth by American Life League, would ever have been invited to the Vatican to offer input for an encyclical.  Given the fact that Sachs has been very up front about his advocacy for abortion, sterilization and contraception, we can only imagine that some at high levels of the Vatican share Sach's decidedly anti-life proclivities.  One such person might be Margaret Archer, who is president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.  Here is her profile from the Vatican website.  In all the gobblygoop that she herself wrote, there are some key omissions.  Read through it and notice that you'll not find once the words "God", "Jesus Christ", "Catholic", "Church", "morals", nor any mentions of the key social encyclicals throughout the decades.  "Why is that important?" you may ask.  Well, I dunno!  I guess that because she's head of a Vatican function, we might have hoped for at least some perfunctory lip service to Catholic social teaching.  Indeed, I wonder if she's even Catholic.  At any rate, her unquestioning belief in the global warming canard is so staunch as to cause her to vent her spleen at questions posed by C-Fam.  Her rancor caused Austin Ruse to bestow upon her (and others) the title of "Bullies For Francis".

There is no doubt that Laudato Si will, at the very least, pave the way for progressives to exercise even more control over Church hierarchy and even world politics; both progressives and conservatives see that coming.  Canada Free Press highlights an article that Sachs wrote in America.  In that article, Sachs voiced his belief that the principles manifest in the US Declaration of Independence must surrender to world government.  The CFP article outlines how Sachs, Ki Moon and others hope that the encyclical will pave the way for one world government.  For an example of progressive gloating and cackling over this encycical, click here; at least they understand it to be revolutionary, even from their warped perspectives.  Aside: as much as he rants against "capitalism", socialism can only be worse.

The rollout of the encyclical next week will be accompanied by some speakers.  Among them is Professer John Schnellnhuber.  This founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research believes the "carrying capacity" of the planet for population is under 1 billion people.  In other words, according to this guy, there are 6 billion too many people currently inhabiting earth.  Just how he intends to correct what he believes to be a "problem" is anyone's nightmare.

Speaking of nightmares, who remembers this from 2008?  According to ABC back then, New York City was supposed to have been submerged by now (remember melting glaziers and drowning polar bears?)  Courtesy of Media Research Council, here's a memory refresher.  This encyclical, at best, will be addressing a non-existent problem.

Of Homofacists And Homophiles

Here is this past Wednesday's Mic'd Up edition regarding homofacism.  Yes that word does describe a sinister reality that I've seen first-hand.

He gives various examples of homofacists rearing their ugly heads.  At 3:45 he broaches the topic of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel who is being persecuted for proclaiming God's truth about marriage.  Right after that he interviews David Hains, Communications Director for the Diocese of Charlotte.  Mr. Hains did stand up for Sister.  I should point out that this Mic'd Up was recorded before Bishop Jugis opened his mouth and waffled all over the place.

Notice at 31:15 where Voris brings up the DC example of homofacism?  He's speaking of the situation two Lents ago at St John Neumann parish when they turned on Father Marcel Guarnizo, with the permission - if not outright connivance - of the DC chancery.  Voris asks the question whether or not Fr. Guarnizo was being set up.  I think that's a fair question; I couldn't help but notice that the Washington Post picked that up immediately - as though they had prior notice.

Notice at 41:30 where he talks of the definition of "homophile" (as coined by Austin Ruse) to mean (among other things) Catholics who seem to think homosexuality is a gift from God that must be celebrated.  Sister Anne Smollin, about whom I wrote yesterday, is such an individual.  For that reason I'm urging that her planned appearance be canceled and at least opposed.  I actually coined that term before; my definition is a bit more broad than Ruse's.  I use it to describe someone who advocates for acceptance of that perverted lifestyle, regardless of whether that person is homosexual or not.  And yes, they are often part and parcel of the homfacism.   I'll now post the video below.

More On Ruse's Lapse Of Judgment

Yesterday's post was not the first occasion in which I commented on a bone-headed position assumed by Austin Ruse.  In June 2013 Father Marcel Guarnizo wrote a piece that took issue with another lapse of judgment on the part of Ruse.  On that occasion Ruse took issue with the pro-life community in Ireland, and again he shilled for imagined political expediency over true Catholic pro-life principles.  I need not rehash my earlier writing; rather, I suggest you read that earlier post and the associated linked articles.

My friend and colleague at Les Femmes penned a piece similar to mine from yesterday.  However, she herself is a Virginian and brings to bear some important facts.  It appears that this push for contraceptives is not the first time that Barbara Comstock has run afoul of moral principles.  Again, I'm not going to rehash already-written material.  Please go to Mary Ann's post and read it.

From what she wrote, I gather that there is a more principled candidate running for US Congress in VA's 10th congressional district - Bob Marshall.  Mary Ann endorses him and I defer to her opinion.  Why Ruse endorses Comstock over Marshall escapes me.  Well, maybe not.  I fear that Ruse has made an idol out of political expediency, or simply wants to get in good with the RINO establishment.  Whatever the reason, that's two significant errors of judgment on Ruse's part.

From The "Et Tu Brute?" Department - Austin Ruse Shills For Dissenting Catholic Politician

Barbara Comstock, a Catholic Virginian who is running for US Congress, is asking the Obama administration to make oral contraceptives available over the counter for women over eighteen.  She is a GOP insider who has the backing of Rick Santorum, Mark Levin and other leading figures.  Why she feels it necessary to cheer Obama's contraceptive mentality is beyond me.  She has garnered well-deserved criticism of LifeSiteNews and other pro-life organizations.

Austin Ruse, president of C-Fam, wrote an article in Crisis magazine entitled "Is Contraception the Hill We Want to Die On?"  He defends Ms. Comstock's formal and material cooperation with the mortal sin of birth control.  Let's take a look at what Comstock did.  In joining that push for contraception, she is actually engaged in an act that is inherently sinful.  I cannot judge her condemned for I know not her degree of culpability; by the same token I cannot assume her excused either.  I am surprised and disappointed that Ruse did not address that facet of the issue, for that one, among all other considerations, deals with the eternal (as opposed to political) consequences of Comstock's foolishness.

The title of the article is Ruse's attempt to take LifeSiteNews and other like-minded people (such as this author) to task for "charging up contraception hill".  In reality, it is Comstock who made that foolish foray up that hill.  We're simply choosing not to look the other way.

Ruse does make some good observations.  He notes, all too accurately, that Catholic homilies on these matters are few and far between.  He also notes that the USCCB has taken no public action regarding contraceptives per se - much to their shame.  Other than these, I cannot but believe that Ruse has done the Teaching Magisterium of the Church a gross disservice.

Father Guarnizo On The Situation In Ireland

On the site of Live Action appears an article penned by Father Marcel Guarnizo on the recent legal battles in the Irish Parliament.  In this article he refutes some misguided statements uttered by Austin Ruse.  I invite you to read it for yourselves.

As you read, recall that contraception is the "camel's nose under the tent".  We would not have had the Roe-v-Wade disaster if that had not been preceded by the Griswold-v-Connecticut disaster.  Even now some US pro-life leaders refuse to accept that.  Remember the Manhattan Declaration?  I've delved into its fatal flaw and why I could not sign it myself.  When will we learn??

Yesterday Live Action, Christian Defense Coalition, Students for Life and others rallied outside the Irish Embassy in Washington DC on behalf of our Irish compatriots who are struggling to keep their country abortion-free.  We join our Irish friends in prayer as we pray and work to end the bloodshed in our own country.