Cardinal Pell Makes Plain Why Laudato Si Should Not Be Taken As Teaching

Cardinal Pell is to be commended for reminding the world that the Church cannot pronounce infallibly on matters of empirical science, or economics for that matter, because Our Lord has not granted her any mandate to do so.  She may teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals - but that's it.  All other matters are left to prudential judgment, given the parameters of faith and morals.  The encyclical makes pretentious claims that the "science" and "economics" promoted therein are the will of God; again that's impossible for those fields are not within the Church's competence.  One immediate outcome will be the reduction of credibility that will be ascribed when the pope does speak on matters of faith and morals, for people might understandably think that if the pope can botch up matters of science and economics in an encyclical (and he has!), why should they believe him when he speaks on matters of faith and morals?  Yes, such thinking would be erroneous and cannot be condoned, but the mess that is Laudato Si renders it understandable.

No doubt Cardinal Pell sees the potential for such real damage that Laudato Si will wreak (see here and here).  It is filled with progressive screed that not only was inspired by the rantings of Sachs and Shnellnhuber, but perhaps are the prattling of the same.  You'll notice that in the first half of the thing.  Here is a collection of my posts on LS; in those posts is a link to the English translation of the document.

The Catholic World Report recently put out a piece that takes issue with the faulty economics that are peppered throughout Laudato Si.  In Laudato Si, the pope raises the same alarmist tocsins regarding the "scarcity" of resources.  Now here's a salient point that CWR raises: "If the pope and others are ringing alarm bells, at times they seem to underestimate the creative power of human intelligence and freedom in the face of extreme scarcity of resources."  Many, if not all, progressives seem to think of man as being a mere consumer.  They fail, or more aptly, refuse to recognize that human labor and ingenuity is probably the most valuable resource imaginable.  That is why they are constantly kvetching for "population control" along with the abortion, contraception and sterilization that they think is necessary to attain "sustainable development".  That is why the "Sachs and Schnellnhuber" cabal seek to bring in others of their mindset such as Noami Klein.

This week's Catholic Standard had as its theme "preparation for the Pope's visit".  One "suggested activity" was to read Laudato Si.  I agree that it should be read so that all might see for themselves that it is permeated with progressive venom.  It is not in keeping with the traditions of our Church and must be both refused and resisted.

Laudato Si And Paris Agreement - Spawned From Same Progressive Agenda

Cardinal Peter Turkson, who had a major role in the drafting of Laudato Si, granted an interview to a news outlet called Mongabay.  In it, he unabashedly admitted that the preamble to the agreement and Laudato Si bore very striking resemblances.  I've no doubt that they are very similar.  This only goes to show how the current Vatican leadership - including Pope Francis - are taking their marching orders from progressive puppet-masters.  Turkson might attempt to pretend that Laudato Si was some sort of inspiration for the Paris Agreement.  However, could it be that the drafters of Laudato Si and the Paris Agreement are simply taking their talking points from the same sugar-daddies?  They certainly aren't basing their theories on solid science!

The Church hierarchy has no moral right to try to cram the "climate change" ideology down our throats.  The mission of the Church is to save souls; that's the mandate given to her by Jesus Christ Himself.  The Church disgraces herself when she lets that divinely-ordained mission play second fiddle to progressive pet projects that are designed to insinuate one-world government as the world's de facto deity.  That disgrace is being allowed by, if not perpetrated by, the pope.

For instance, the Church must uphold Christ's teachings on marriage and the evil of homosexual conduct.  The Italian Parliament is deliberating bills to legalize sodomy and the adoption of children by perverts.  Good people are taking a stand.  This past weekend, an organization called "Committee to Defend Our Children" organized a rally in Rome, dubbing it "Family Day 2016".  Hundreds of thousands of good people made their voices heard.   Cardinal Angel Bagnasco, Archbishop of Genoa and president of the Italian Bishops' Conference played a key leadership role and was present at that rally.  Pope Francis, however, distanced himself from the rally, going so far as to cancel a meeting he had scheduled with Bagnasco. The Remnant has more details.  They give their opinions on the "whys and wherefores" of the pope's reluctance to stand with faithful Catholics.  They are opinions but I believe they are well-reasoned.

I mention all this to remind us all that it is outside the Church's realm of expertise to pronounce on "climate change".  We are free to disagree with the hierarchy's progressive take on the matter.  In light of the flimsy scientific basis for it and the progressive ramifications of it, I'd suggest we disagree with it vigorously.

Laudato Si - Seamless Garment And Humanism

I'm still slogging through the mess known as Laudato Sii and am happy to refer to you some excellent commentary by fellow Catholic writers.  From the Remnant Newspaper, we have from Chris Jackson "Why I'm Disregarding Laudato Si And Why You Should Too".  I do believe that all should take the time and trouble to read it for ourselves (I linked to the English translation yesterday), if only to be able to discuss it intelligently to those who might be so confused as to put it on a par with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  Perhaps we might be able to work off a little time from Purgatory by subjecting ourselves to the obvious mortification - to think that a pontiff could vomit forth such bile.

He gives the paragraph numbers for the snippets that he cites so that the incredulous can see the crap for themselves.  I'll interject a few of my own observations to date.  In paragraph 8, just before he sneaks in the "seamless garment" phrase, we have a quote from Patriarch Bartholomew opining that when we "cause changes in the climate..strip the earth of its forests..we sin against God."  Leaving alone (for now) that we are under no obligation whatsoever to take seriously the bloviations of a non-Catholic, we really can breathe a sigh of relief for we are not "causing changes in the climate" nor are we "stripping the earth of its forests".

Like Jackson, I too have noticed the emphasis on "feeling".  Try this fun exercise.  Copy and paste the encyclical into a Word document (as I did).  Do a word search on "feel".  Rather revelatory, isn't it?  But if any envirowhackos insist on feeling guilt for the "stripping of forests", I present to you (as did Jackson), an aide to help you express your feelings of remorse.  The video below was taken several years ago, as a loony bunch calling themselves "Earth First" had a little sob-session over some trees.  And yes, they were serious!



As I watched the video, I expressed my feelings (that word again!) of mirth and comedy.  In other words, I laughed until tears came from my eyes!

Here's another curious result from the word-search feature.  Try looking up "humanism".  We know what that is, right?  If not, examine the website of the American Humanist Association and read the various manifestos.  They are quite up front about their atheism and anti-life agendas. It's interesting how these words such as "humanism", "seamless garment", etc are slyly insinuated into this document so that they could worm their way into our thinking.

As I was looking into my post archives just now, I was reminded that last September, some progressives conducted a "People's Climate March" in New York City, with Cardinal Dolan sounding the trumpets for it.  Look at the attendees, and notice how fossil fuels were demonized - as they are in Laudato Si.  To me, it sounds like that march and this encyclical received input from the same sources.

I won't disregard Laudato Si, for I believe it to be a snake in the grass that must be watched.

Vatican Striking Hands With New World Order

Earlier today the pope spoke at a Vatican "climate change conference" (yes, another one!).  Please note that it was not a conference to discuss the precipitous decline that faith and morals have undergone in once-Catholic enclaves like Ireland.  Nope!  One again the pope was touting his screed Laudato Si and yes, the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals.  Don't believe me?  It's right here on the Vatican site!  Notice also in his address the references to "global energy transition", "interdependent world", "global responses".  This is nothing more than unabashed shilling for a one-world government.

Now let's look at another meeting that will be attended by Cardinal Parolin; I speak of the annual Bilderberg Group meeting.  Lifesitenews gives a brief run-down of the history of this thing.  Basically it's a gabfest of those who wield power in Europe and the US to discuss various issues regarding government and life.  It's quite elitist, to say the least.  It's also quite secretive, as attendees are sworn not to divulge the discussions outside the meeting.  This is the first time that a Church official has been invited to this globalist gaggle.

Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, said that "while the Church is a global organization, it is thankfully not a globalist organization".  In light of the pope's address this week (and in light of Laudato Si and other occurrences), we might believe Mr. McAdams to be mistaken.  McAdams also pointed out that Bill Gates, a frequent Bilderberg attendee, advocates lowering the world's population to stop "global climate change".  He does indeed.  However, the pope's address this week, coupled with Laudato Si, echo Gates' beliefs when they embrace the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.  In many ways, this pope has adopted the anti-life mindset of Gates et al; he certainly is furthering the progressive goals.

By the way - the big topic of discussion at this year's Bilderberg event is "populism".  Yes, they are truly worried when people actually value their own culture, traditions and faith in God versus a slavish grovelling to the New World Order.  And in what country to the Great Unwashed dare to throw off their progressive-imposed shackles?  Italy!  They join Poland and Hungary in declaring their autonomy from the EU slave-masters!  This must be such an embarrassment to the Pope and his Vatican progressive pals.  Let us keep them in prayer that they rediscover and reinvigorate their Catholic heritage.  We can even pray the same for the Vatican.

Speaking of Laudato Si, here's a little entertainment from AKA Catholic.

Laudato Si And Climate Confusion

In today's Mic'd Up from Church Militant TV, Michael Voris interviews three guests to comment on the junk science that is the basis of Laudato Si.  Two of them are Lord Christopher Monckton and Michael Hichborn.  Pay close attention to all of them, but note most carefully the indignity that Monckton endured at the hands of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences because he doesn't swill the "climate change" kool-aid.  Here's the link.

By the way - look up some words and phrases in Laudato Si.  It's quite telling.

• Try "sustainable" (for "sustainable development).  I suggest just that one word for what you will see is an attempt to conceal the phrase by plopping other words: namely "sustainable and integral development", found in paragraph 13.  We also see "sustainable human development" in paragraph 18.  The simple phrase occurs by itself in paragraph 52.  Now in paragraph 61, we see that "the present world system ...is unsustainable".  See how the idea of a "new world order" is being insinuated?  There are synonyms, such as "sustainable progress" in paragraph 114.  The phrase by itself occurs again in paragraph 159.  We see it again in paragraph 167 as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit is lauded, and again in paragraph 169 as scientists such as Lord Monckton and others are mocked.  That word again is found in paragraphs 191 and 192; read those paragraphs.  So the phrase "sustainable development" is being repeated, and perhaps for a purpose.  Consider that in April the Pontifical Academy of Sciences hosted a "sustainable development" symposium (from which they tried to exclude Monckton).  From that meeting came a document that overtly called for population control.  See the quote in my linked article.  There's method to the madness, it seems.
• Let's look at "humanism".  I touched upon the atheistic underpinnings of that term a few days ago.  Just google "American Humanist Association" and look at the manifestos.  In this document, the word occurs in paragraphs 141 and 180.
• Try looking up "regulat".  I suggest that spelling so you can see the root word in both "noun" and "adjective" permutations.  Interesting?

The authors were not at all subtle about their shilling for one-world-government in Laudato Si.  In the video, suggestions are made that the pope was "duped".  I think that's unreasonable.  Should we really believe that the leader of the Church, who was a bishop in a major city, is really such an imbecilic dunce that he could be led by the nose like that?  I'm grateful that Monckton ended his portion of the interview as he did.

Yet Another Vatican Conference Will Promote Climate-Change Junk Science And Population Control

From the Catholic News Agency, we read that this conference will occur next week, July 21-22.  Ostensibly its purpose is to demonstrate a linkage between "climate change" and slavery.  Well, I daresay other linkages are made even more manifest by this conference.  The title of the conference is one indicator.  "Modern Slavery and Climate Change: the Commitment of the Cities" is the title of the workshop in question that will be held during the conference entitled "Prosperity, People and Planet: Achieving Sustainable Development in Our Cities".  The conference is sponsored by (surprise!) the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Let's focus on the conference title for now.  What two words indicate the underlying agenda with all this?  Sustainable Development!  We've seen that lots of times over the past few months, have we not?  Back in April, this same Pontifical Academy of Sciences hosted another symposium to prepare for the disastrous Laudato Si; the report produced therein specifically called for "reaching a level and sustainable population".  Recall that just after the release of Laudato Si, the Apostolic Nuncio to the UN gave the Vatican's formal approval to "the verbatim inclusion of the sustainable development goals and targets" of the UN.  That means that the Vatican has given approval for the usage of abortion, contraception and sterilization to accomplish those ends.  Oh sure, there might be the statements here and there decrying abortion, but they are far outweighed by the more insidious promulgation of concepts such as "climate change" and "sustainable development".

We also must consider whom the pope is taking into his confidence.  We've seen him include in various deliberations and conferences notorious "population control" advocates such as Jeffrey Sachs, Hans Schnellnhuber and others.  I point out that Schnellnhuber was recently appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  Can anyone doubt that he had much to do with the putrid output of these symposiums and conferences?

I wrote a piece two months ago explaining how I see the "smoke of satan"entering the Church through a number of specific avenues; one of them is climate change, but they all seem to dovetail into each other.  We also see how the "climate change" hoax makes it easy for guilty parties to excuse their enabling of the gay agenda.

Almost two years ago I wrote of a pastor within the Archdiocese of Washington who publicly announced that he condoned homosexual conduct while counseling Catholics.  At that time I wondered aloud if he would be allowed to continue in his post, where he posed a danger to souls.  Lo and behold, this week's issue of the Catholic Standard indicates that he still holds his post.  Not only that, but the Standard is holding Father Daly and his parish up as examples.  Why?  Because they've "gone green"!  In Father's words, it's part of "a living faith".  So, never mind about the souls of the poor homosexuals who need the truth of Jesus Christ and His sacramental graces.  As long as the parish and pastor are "green" (and don't you just love his green cap?), who care about souls going to hell?

Remember - Laudato Si and the proceeds from these junk-summits do not stem from dogma.  They fall within the realm of "prudential judgment" at best.  Truth be told, the level of "prudence" isn't that high, as these things do reek of progressivism.  We are not required, as faithful Catholics, to give assent to them.  I'll leave you with two things: the first is an excellent article by John Zmirak.  The second is a link to some very relevant entertainment for a Friday evening.

Church Environmentalism Is Phariseeism

Today is the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time and we are in Cycle B for Sunday readings.  Today's first reading is from Deuteronomy 4:1-2,6-8.  Here it is.

Moses said to the people:
“Now, Israel, hear the statutes and decrees
which I am teaching you to observe,
that you may live, and may enter in and take possession of the land
which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God,
which I enjoin upon you,
you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it.
Observe them carefully,
for thus will you give evidence
of your wisdom and intelligence to the nations,
who will hear of all these statutes and say,
‘This great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.’
For what great nation is there
that has gods so close to it as the LORD, our God, is to us
whenever we call upon him?
Or what great nation has statutes and decrees
that are as just as this whole law
which I am setting before you today?”

Today's Gospel is from Mark 7:1-8,14-15,21-23.  I repost that.

When the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem
gathered around Jesus,
they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals
with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands. 
—For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews,
do not eat without carefully washing their hands,
keeping the tradition of the elders.
And on coming from the marketplace 
they do not eat without purifying themselves. 
And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed,
the purification of cups and jugs and kettles and beds. —
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him,
“Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders
but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?” 
He responded,
“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”

He summoned the crowd again and said to them,
“Hear me, all of you, and understand. 
Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person;
but the things that come out from within are what defile.

“From within people, from their hearts,
come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,
adultery, greed, malice, deceit,
licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.All these evils come from within and they defile.”

I emphasized in bold some points that I'll make in a minute.

Cardinal Wuerl Attempts Damage-Control For Laudato Si

As many know, yesterday Fox News interviewed Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington.  Chris Wallace conducted the interview and I post it below.  I have some comments and they won't necessarily occur in order, as they appear on the clip.

First the two discussed comments made by Jeb Bush regarding "getting policy from the bishops".  The cardinal seemed to intimate that Laudato Si was not putting forth policy but merely the moral framework.  As I read Laudato Si, I most certainly do see policy being put forth.  We see that quite explicityly in paragraph 173, where the pope is suggesting the use of "global regulatory norms".  Paragraph 175 goes on to say that there should be "organized international institutions..empowered to impose sanctions."  The pope is flat out calling for a surrender of national sovereignity in favor of one-world government.  I call that "setting forth policy" as opposed to mere "moral frameworks".

They then turn their attention to criticisms leveled by Rush Limbaugh.  They played one snippit of his broadcast from June 16th.  To put that piece in context, I present to you the link to the entire transcript as it appears on Rush's website.  After listening to the clip, they chuckle and Wuerl says that in this country one can speak their mind even if "they don't have all the facts".  Well, not too many authentic facts will support the global warming hoax.  Quite a few scientists are sounding the alarm regarding that hoax.  For their troubles, they have found themselves shut out of any Vatican discussions regarding the encyclical.  From the Washington Post, we read "How Climate Change Doubters Lost A Papal Fight." As you read it, take note of the treatment meted out to Philippe de Larminet.  He wasn't the only one so marginalized.  So much for "all discussing this" and "coming to the table", when scientists who see through the global warming conundrum are excluded simply because they don't tow the progressive party line.  Indeed, they (and all people of common sense) are vilified as having "obstructionist attitudes" (see paragraph 14 of the encyclical).

Today Limbaugh voiced his reply to the interview and I now link to it.  The "lunatic" to whom Limbaugh refers is, I believe, Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber.  Given what I said about the latter's theory about the "earth's maximum carrying capacity", the "lunatic" label is charitable.  Everything else that Limbaugh states, both about the interview and the encyclical, is spot on.  Now the clip:

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.

Attention Vatican! Envirowhackoism Is NOT Magisterial Teaching

A December 3rd Acton Institute conference in Rome saw a close papal adviser make statements about the Magisterium that are, well, not in keeping with Church tradition.  The bishop in question is Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo.  He unabashedly stated that the politically correct and scientifically unsound envirowhackoism as espoused by progressives is to be considered part of the magisterium.  Why?  Because the pope included it in Laudato Si.  LifeSiteNews has a full report.

The bishop found himself contradicted by Acton president Father Robert Sirico and journalist Ricardo Cascioli.  Sorondo then uttered this incredible nonsense as the definition of the magisterium: When the Pope has assumed this, it is Magisterium of the Church whether you like it or not..

Got that?  According to him, mere assumption is enough to constitute Church teaching.  Of course that is poppycock.  At the very least, any such "assumption" must be in conformity with already-established Church teaching, and that teaching states that the pope can speak infallibly only on matters of faith and morals.

My Catholic Media Coalition colleague at Les Femmes also commented on this bishop's foolish pronouncement, one that Father Fessio called an "embarrassment to the Church".  As I mentioned in her comments, this bishop was merely parroting the pope.  I now link to a piece published by Catholic Citizens of Illinois (another Catholic Media Coalition member).  It is by Carl Olson, editor of Catholic World Report.  He writes about the many gaffes that this current pontiff has uttered and the damage done by them.  I daresay this latest nonsense by Bishop Sorondo claiming that Laudato Si is defined dogma of the Church is just the latest example of the havoc being caused by these regrettable papal statements.

Advocate For Coerced Population Control To Speak At Vatican

When Laudato Si was being formulated, the Vatican invited many progressive hacks to conduct seminars and conferences in preparation.  Jeffrey Sachs, John Schnellnhuber and Naomi Klein come immediately to mind.  All of these people are flagrant proponents of "population control".  Within a preparatory report for Laudato Si called "Climate Change and the Common Good itself is an unmistakable call for "population control"; see this post for the direct quote.  I also link to another post on environmentalism junk science and suggest that you review the videos embedded therein.

In 1968, a left-wing ideologue named Paul Ehrlich released a book called "The Population Bomb".  This tome helped the population-control/enviromentalis juggernaut get underway.  In this book he advocated mandatory population control.  I quote: "we must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion of voluntary methods fail.  We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control."  The "voluntary methods", of course, include contraception and abortion.  As far as "compulsion", we see that in Communist China today with their barbaric forced abortions to enforce their "one child policy".  The man is flat-out advocating for big government (a prime progressive goal in and of itself) to engage in gulag-style mass murder of infants that would make both Hitler and Stalin resemble Mother Teresa in comparison.  It is not too far-fetched to guess that this man has much blood on his hands and is in grave danger off damnation as he continues to espouse his hell-spawned convictions

Incredibly, though, it seems that the Vatican, far from calling this man to repentance for his advocacy of murder, intends to give to him a forum by which he can continue to promulgate his anti-life and anti-God screeds.

The venue is a conference on "Biological Extinction", sponsored by the Pontifical Academies for the Sciences and Social Sciences, to be held late Feb - early March.  The program for this gab-fest is one huge propaganda piece telling the cliche-lie that mankind is ruining Mother Earth and we'd better do something about it yesterday or we'll all die".  See the LifeSite link for the program.   C-Fam listed a number of bald-faced lies committed by Ehrlich; I wonder how many will be in that paper that Ehrlich presents to that overpopulation hootenany next month.

By the way - who is paying for all these bogus conferences?  I'm beginning to think that a boycott of the Peter's Pence collection might be in order..

The Rot Inside The Church That Paved The Way For Laudato Si

An organization called America's Survival interviewed Michael Hichborn shortly before Laudato Si was officially released.  He revealed quite a few details on how pervasive the progressive rot is inside the Vatican - all the way to the top.  Of course he touches upon the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and all the other corruption that make up the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Take note especially of how John Carr, former director of "social justice" at the USCCB, tried to bribe Hichborn into silence about all that he uncovered.

Towards the end, Hichborn noted that CCHD is still corrupt and that we should not contribute.  I agree.  On that note, I've a word for the Archdiocese of Washington.  Most dioceses hold their CCHD collections in November.  For several years now, the ADW has held its collection in August; this year it'll be during the Aug 8-9 weekend.  Moreover, they've tried to disguise it by stating that it's the "Catholic Communications and Human Development" collection.  Drop not one red penny into that.  I'll have more on this later.  Now the video.

From The Piled High And Deep Department - Synod Instrumentum Laboris Is Out

Still reeling from the stench of Laudato Si, we are now confronted with the working document that will guide the Ordinary Synod on the Family next October.  All reports so far confirm that the "Kasper proposal" regarding Holy Communion for those in adultery remains in place.  According to Catholic News Agency, some synod fathers "have asked that each individual case be examined, and that couples in special circumstances be allowed to receive the Eucharist after completing a journey of penance and reconciliation guided by the local bishop."

Shall we unpack this glop?  Firstly if one talks about "penance and reconciliation", there must be a cessation of the sinful situation; that is, the adulterers must separate.  Else there is no real penance and/or reconciliation: just a cheap, sentimental facade that will garner no one any real spiritual benefit.  In fact, those engaged in the fake "penance" while continuing in adultery will merely have their consciences numbed as they continue spiraling to eternal damnation.

From News.va we read, "the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops noted that it makes reference to the family and ecclesial accompaniment, the streamlining of procedures for causes for annulment, the integration of faithful in irregular situations, the eventual introduction of a penitential route, the pastoral problems regarding mixed marriages and disparities of worship, as well as questions related to responsible procreation, reduction of births, adoption and fostering, respect for life from conception to natural end, and education of future generations."  The general secretary of the synod is Cardinal Baldisseri.  But consider these phrases: responsible procreation?  Reduction of births?  What is that about?  Do we hear echoes of Laudato Si here?  Do we see the tentacles of the Sachs-Schnellnhuber squid insinuating themselves into this upcoming sin-nod?

When the English is online I'll post it.  As it stands now, we already have harbingers of a mess to come this October.

Vatican's Flirtation With Climate Change Leads To More Squalid Associations

Almost two months ago, I wrote of "the smoke of Satan" infiltrating the Catholic Church.  As you read the first post in that anthology, you'll notice that there are a number of avenues by which progressivism and by extension, Satan, is insinuating his anti-God agenda into the minds of Catholic leaders; I regret to say that evidence indicates that some of his nefarious ideas are seemingly being entertained by the pope.  Obviously with the Obergefell v Hodges ruling, our attention has been focused on the second bullet point.  However much has been happening with regards to the first and fourth points.

Again we owe much gratitude to the Lepanto Institute for smoking out some "smoke of Satan".  They discovered that within days of the issuance of Laudato Si, Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Aposotoic Nuncio to the UN, gave formal approval to the "Sustainable Development" goals of the United Nations.  The official Vatican statement, made on behalf of Pope Francis, stated, "We support the verbatim inclusion of the sustainable development goals and targets as in the Report of the OWG (Open Working Group)."  We all know what that term "verbatim" means in this context; the Vatican has put its stamp of approval to all the sustainable development goals; that includes "sexual and reproductive rights".  Of course that means contraception, sterilization and abortion.

Read the Lepanto article for more detail.  I do have one minor disagreement with Lepanto.  Towards the end, they opine that the archbishop and the pope don't understand the ramifications of the sustainable development goals.  I believe the only way that could possibly be true if both the pope and this archbishop were absolutely clueless dunderheads.  Can we believe that without being simpletons ourselves?  Of course not: not when "sustainable development" and various synonyms are splattered all throughout Laudato Si itself.

But there is evidence to make clear that the Vatican, all the way to the pope, understand very well what is entailed by the phrase "sustainable development".  A key component of that evidence is the plethora of progressives and anti-life personalities who, at the behest of the Vatican, are providing input to the "climate change" initiatives of the Vatican: Ban Ki-Moon, Jeffrey Sachs, Hans Schnellnhuber.  It seems that this evidence is growing before our very eyes.

Word now comes to us via Catholic News Agency that yet another such individual will be working with Cardinal Turkson.  She is Naomi Klein and she describes herself as a "secular Jewish feminist".  She states that she was "surprised" to be invited to speak at a Vatican environmental summit.  Well, many of us share her surprise, albeit for different reasons.  She clearly has Marxist leanings (like so many in the Vatican these days) and has gone so far as to support the Occupy movement.

We clearly are getting an unambiguous picture of the attitudes of many in the Vatican when it comes to population control.  Whether they intend it or not, they are lending credibility to baby murder.

Laudato Si - READ IT!

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm reading on too many sites - from faithful Catholics - who, being understandably disgusted with Laudato Sii, are suggesting that others NOT read the encyclical.  One site owner went so far as to state that because he endured the reading of Laudato Sii and published his commentary, others need not "waste their time" in reading it for themselves.

BIG MISTAKE!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, the problems within our Church can be blamed (in part) on faithful Catholics who have not been diligent in doing their research and are content to let others do "the heavy lifting" and thinking for them.  They are culpable of grave negligence and the suggestion to eschew the encyclical only affirm others in being lax and non-vigilant.

Look, I know the encyclical is full of progressivism and humanism.  I know it can be exasperating to read such pig-slop.  I know there can be temptations to anger and frustrations.  SO WHAT??  Read it anyway!  Each and everyone of us (that means YOU, dear reader!) has a solemn responsibility to understand what is happening within our Church and our civilization.  We cannot slough our personal responsibiity onto others.  If you do, just what do you expect to give as an answer when you face Our Lord at the moment of your death?

Here's the link.  Please start reading it NOW!

Pope Francis, We MUST, On Pain Of Sin, Avoid Even The Appearance Of Communism

Pope Francis, this past Monday, claimed that Christians shy from the "social gospel" because they fear that the Church will look like the Communist Party.  Of course he is trying to cajole Catholics into disregarding their common sense so that they will indeed swallow the "social gospel" crap - and eventually socialism, if not outright communism.

In light of these shameless attempts by the pope and other quasi-socialists to induce false shame into us, we must stand strong and call them out for what they are.  Here are just a few facts about this "social gospel". He is a big fan of Dorothy Day and her Catholic Worker Movement.  I don't know just what Day's original intent was for the CWM, but it has veered into socialism and dissidence.  From this page of the DC affiliate, we see that they have allowed disgraced Bishop Thomas Gumbleton to speak at their events, as well as some Pax Christi individuals.  Of course, rabidly pro-abortion Jeffrey Sachs was often invited to the Vatican to craft Laudato Si, a thinly-disguided apology for socialism, as well as population-control and climate-change junk science.

In 1984, Pope John Paul II suspended a divinis the priestly faculties of Fr. Ernesto Cardenal, when the latter held a cabinet position in Nicaragua's Sandinista government.  Cardenal had always been a Marxist involved in "liberation theology".  Pope Francis lifted the suspension.  He noted that Cardenal accepted the suspension, but there was no mention of Cardenal seeing the errors of his Marxist and liberation theology mindsets.  In this and his various document, the pope displays an untoward affinity for socialism and even communism.

Previous popes have proclaimed quite different things about socialism and communism.  They are worth a study.  They emphatically declare those philosophies to be inherently evil.  So should Christians shy away from appearing to be communists, even if they aren't - for now?  Absolutely.  1 Thessalonians 5:22 is adamant about avoiding the appearance of evil - and that is what communism is.  The so-called social gospel is a spiritual and moral booby-trap.

Catholic Standard Articles Reveal True Thrust Of The Current Pope.

Today I picked up the July 17th issue of the Catholic Standard (the official mouthpiece for the Archdiocese of Washington).  While disappointed at the amount of bilge that was contained therein, I was not surprised.

Let's go in order as the stuff appeared in the print edition.  On page 3 was the account of Cardinal McElroy receiving a pallium from Pope Leo XIV.  The online article is here.  Most of the article was a rehash of a homily that Leo gave on the occasion.  Some bloopers popped up.  He spoke of moving "beyond a tired and stagnant faith".  If he truly is serious about such movement, one key thing he could do is stop the insidious attempts to quash the Traditional Latin Mass.  I attend these regularly on Sundays.  The faith there can in no way be called "tired and stagnant".  Then towards the end, he spoke of the beatitudes as being equivalent to the goals of today's "social justice warriors".  No where did he mention that the beatitudes spoke of the repentance from sin and pursuit of personal holiness.

We then turn a few pages and see two articles that are basically screeds that shill for those border-crashers euphemistically called "undocumented immigrants".  They are found here and here.  The first is an interview with Cardinal McElroy while the second is penned by Auxiliary Bishop Menjivar.  Both articles share the same flaw, and I think this flaw has been repeated so often that, owing to its repetition, is actually a blatant sin against honesty.  I am talking, of course of the disingenuous refusal to differentiate immigrants who come here in accordance with our immigration laws versus those who deliberately violate our laws by sneaking across the border, coming under false pretenses, overstaying visas, etc.  All of us welcome those who arrive in accordance with our laws.  Decent people object to those who flout our laws, and lately, with the complicity of progressives, including those in the US Catholic hierarchy, are coming in by the thousands.  Hitherto, Catholic Charities have received millions in federal grants to "process" thousands of these people, many of whom are being sex-trafficked across the border.

I noticed towards the end of the interview article, McElroy couldn't help but put in a plug for one of his pet divergences from Sacred Tradition.  He of course shilled for "women deacons".  Bishop Menjivar, on the other hand, actually stated our case for us, albeit unwittingly.  The whole article is lacking in wit, but I digress.  Here is what he said, and you can read it for yourselves in the link provided.

"That’s right. From the very beginning of the United States, this country was pro-immigration; and one of the main complaints of the Founders was the English government forbidding the colonies from passing laws promoting migration and naturalization of people from countries other than England."

England disregarded our right to pass laws regarding immigration, rendering existing ones moot in practice.  Those crashing our borders are doing the exact same thing in disregarding our laws and our right to regulate immigration.  I might add that the moral guilt lies not only with the border-crashers,  but with people such as McElroy and Menjivar who hold our laws, and our law-keepers, in contempt.

But enough with immigration, for social justice has many facets.  In this same issue, we read that Pope Leo is praying for the "conversion" of certain people.  Who might be these people?  Are they those who embrace homosexuality and other perversions?  Are they those who facilitate the baby-slaughter known as abortion?  Nope!  Well then, just who are these depraved degenerates who stand in need of all this "conversion"?  Why, these are dastardly fiends who (I can scarcely bring myself to mention these horrid, scandalous words!) resist climate action!  Read it here!  

On Monday July 9, Leo celebrated a Mass "for the care of creation".  Yes, it is a new Mass that has been added to the Roman Missal.  Of course natural disasters are lamented for they supposedly "are in part created by the excesses of human beings with their lifestyle".  In other words, people are the big meanies who need to undergo the requisite guilt trips.  Most troubling, though, is this echo from Laudato Si: "we listen to the cry of the earth, we listen to the cry of the poor".  In other words, the planet is being made equal to human beings.  That is heresy.  We cannot assent to that under any circumstance.  We cannot say "amen" to any prayer containing that error, even if a pope were to put forth that prayer.  I did several posts in the past regarding the problem in which this pope seeks to embroil us.  Please read.   When Francis died and Leo was elected, I had hopes that there would be fidelity to Tradition again.  Those hopes are growing dim and once again, we must resist papal errors.

Laudato Si Is Here And It Is A Stinker

The much dreaded awaited encyclical is here.  The English version is on the Vatican website and I am in the process of wading through the mess.  Many of my colleagues were awaiting this with apprehension.  So far the encyclical is living down to all expectations.  Oh yes, there are the admonitions against abortion as one would hope in a Catholic document.  But as Voice of the Family notes in their statement, there is no such admonition against contraception.  In fact, I pulled the thing into Word and did a search for "contraception" - not one mention!

Michael Voris released a preliminary statement today and noted correctly that the science behind this thing - and it's splattered all throughout the thing as though it were Holy Writ - is by no means settled science.  Because the encyclical does not touch on either faith or morals, it does not bind the consciences of Catholics; Voris reminded us all of that.  In fact, Voris rightly points out the deadly results that would occur if the political and scientific policies suggested by the encyclical were to be implemented.

I do have one disagreement with Voris.  At 3:54 in the video, he seems to insinuate that Pope Francis, "whose good and kind nature could possibly, easily be taken advantage of by less scrupulous men", is somehow exhonorated from any responsibility for this encyclical.  No. This can't be blamed on "evil boogeymen who are leading him astray". The pope owns what he says and does. How long was he bishop and cardinal? He's been around the block too many times for us to believe that he's just a lovable, naive little bumpkin. Think on this: if he truly is so simplistic and gullible as to allow himself to be manipulated in such a manner, what business does he have leading the Church?  At best, the view of the pope being a naive "nice guy" is actually quite condescending.  The responsibility for this disastrous encyclical lies squarely on the shoulders of the pope.  There's no way one can put lipstick on that pig.

CUA Ethicist Recommends Reworking Of Amoris Laetitia

Sometimes Crud gets it right.  This time is occasioned by the publishing of a commentary by Michael Pakaluk, professor at Catholic University of America.  He is troubled by the obvious input of Archbishop Victor Fernandez.  He points out that several of the passages in AL, including some from Chapter 8, were lifted almost verbatum from earlier writings done by Fernandez.  Apparently the same can be said for some passages from both Evangelii Gaudeum and Laudato Si.

I've written a bit about Fernandez before; see this anthology of posts.  For obvious reasons, he could well be nick-named "bishop kissy-mouth".  At any rate, Pakaluk delves more into the errors of Fernandez's statements and his misquotes of prior church writings in an attempt to justify the twisted conclusions embedded in Amoris Laetitia.  Pakaluk therefore suggests that "Amoris needs to be taken back to the shop" and while they're at it, to address the other ambiguities broached by the dubia.  Agreed.

Vatican Abominations Foster DC Catholic School Abominations

Many remember that young gal who stood up at an AOC rally recently and who proclaimed that in the interests of "saving the planet", we need to start "eating babies".  While there is now talk that this gal may have been a plant by a fringe group run by Lyndon LaRouche, it is undeniable that AOC actually agreed with the gal's premise that the planet's future is in danger.  While the rest of the audience evinced some shock at the gal's remarks, AOC herself never denounced them.  She merely said that there are other means to advance envirowhackoism (although my phrasology wasn't hers').

Sounds far-fetched?  Consider that in a Stockholm summit last week, Swedish scientist Magnus Soderlund proposed that eating human flesh might be able to save the human race from climate change.  He then went on to complain about "conservative taboos", stating that we rubes might be "too selfish to live sustainably".

Now I link to a post I did three years ago on envirowackoism in the Church.  In that article is a link to a video done by Michael Voris that exposes how environmentalism has anti-life and idolatrous underpinnings.  Now I will link to another of my posts that features a light-show abomination played on the walls of St Peter's Basilica.  Remember that?  The purpose of that descecration was to usher in that "year of mercy".

Now consider what happened in the Vatican gardens yesterday, with that undisguised idol worship, witnessed and approved by the pope.  Consider it especially in the context of what I mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.   Now bear in mind some of the virulent anti-life proponents invited to this Sham-azon Sin-nod  The Church will be injected with idolatrous anti-life poisons to its most likely deformation.

Meanwhile, back in the Archdiocese of Washington, local Catholics are being brainwashed prepared for this "newness of the Spirit".  Poor pope!  Someone forgot to remind him that the Spirit, being the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, is eternal and perfect. He cannot change.  The commands He issued hundreds of years ago likewise will not change.

The "preparation" is evident in the October 3rd edition of the Catholic Standard and (from the little Spanish that I know) its sister publication, El Pregonero.  By the way; there is a lot of lunacy in this issue of the Standard, but I'll deal with that in another post.  Here we see the Catholic Standard waxing chipper about local Catholic school students participating in the September 20th Climate Strike.   A teacher from St Elizabeth Seton High School is quoted as saying that they were "following the pope's example".  He's quite correct on that; the problem is that the pope's example is horrible.   Will they soon be kneeling before pagan idols in the school auditorium?  But I digress.

The students chanted the usual banal slogans.  Did they think about what they were doing?  For instance, Florence Kane from Georgetown Visitation wore a T-shirt that said "No More Fossil Fuels".  Is Ms. Kane accordingly prepared to give up any idea of owning a car?  Then there's this gem: "Hey hey, ho ho, climate change has got to go".  So change of seasons is now evil?   They also had to endure listen to Greta Thunberg, the rather loud Swedsh teen who is being exploited by the "climate change" junk-science proponents; in doing so, they only enabled her exploiters.

Now let's take a look at that outfit behind the September 20th escapade.  Of course they have a list of partners.  On that list you can find all manners of Soros-funded and/or Alinsky-originated leftist outfits.  Many of those support the gay agenda and the abortion agenda.  But speaking of the latter, recall the Swedish scientist Soderlund who proposes the eating of human flesh.

The article ends with the kids declaring themselves to be the "Laudato Si generation".  What's wrong with being faithful Catholics? We are mindful of our duties to be faithful stewards of creation, but we also recognize that creation exists in service of mankind, not as a peer of mankind.  The parents of all these hoodwinked students should be outraged that their students were gyped out of a day's worth of actual schooling so that they could be used as agitprops for an earth-worship, socialist-driven agenda.  The teachers of those schools and the staff of the Standard should hang their heads in shame for promoting such drivel and being puppets of those progressives.