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!

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.

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.

If Personnel Is Policy, We Have Glaring Indications Of Dangerous Vatican Policy

Sandro Magister has done the Catholic world immense service by exposing the progressive machinations within the Vatican, particularly with its conduct during last October's sin-nod.  Eponymous Flower has more detail on Magister's service to truth.  Most recently he published a leaked version of the Laudato Sii encyclical, which is scheduled to be released tomorrow.  Tancred also details how Magister's Vatican press credentials were immediately revoked.  Dare we opine that Father Lombardi's outrage is rather biased?

Regretably Lombardi's alleged zeal for ethics seems to be a thin pretense for sacking Magister on the flimsiest of excuses.  Such bias is evidence by the people who are allowed to remain at the Vatican.  Who can forget the book theft engineered by Cardinal Baldiserri at the sin-nod?  How about Father Rosica's spiteful conduct in filing suit against Vox Cantoris?  So here we have a Prince of the Church engaged in mortal sin against the Seventh Commandment and a Vatican official engaged in unethical intimidation (fortunately for him his higher-ups yanked his leash).  To the best of my knowledge, they still retain their high positions, despite their arguably serious sins.  So yes, we do have a purging of the faithful from the Vatican.

Concurrent with this purging of the faithful is the placement of those whose public opinions are openly hostile to the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  As mentioned before here, Hans Joachim (John) Schnellnhuber, population control afficiando, will be one of the four who will assist tomorrow in the roll-out of Laudato Sii.  Schnellnhuber is on record as saying that the world's population should be reduced to under one billion people - a reduction of about six billion.  So how, dare we ask, does Schnellnhuber propose to accomplish this massive reduction?  We wait with bated breath for the answer to that question.

Perhaps the Vatican should have awaited the answer to that crucial question before they named him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  Yes, you read that correctly.  A rabid population-control advocate, instead of receiving the boot on ass, is actually admitted to a Vatican position.  If we know his wishes to reduce the earth's population, surely the Vatican does too - and I mean the pope!

As the saying goes, personnel is policy.  I think we now have more than an inkling as to what Vatican policy is.  And yes, ladies and gentlemen, with all due honor and respect to the office of the papacy, we cannot kid ourselves and pretend that the current occupant of Peter's chair is blithely unaware of these events.  He is enabling them if not outright orchestrating them.  Please pray for him and for Holy Mother Church.

More On The Leaked Encyclical And Silly Damage Control

There are further details about the release of the encyclical Laudato Sii that is set for this coming Thursday.  It appears that four individuals are slated to help roll this thing out.  One of them is Professor Joachim Schnellnhuber.  I wrote about him this past Saturday; he's the charming individual who thinks "global warming" is the result of too many people on this planet - 6 billion too many, to be precise.   Now we learn that the fourth individual is (drum roll!) Carolyn Woo, president of Catholic Relief Services.  The hyperlink on the CRS name will take you to posts detailing the myriad of ways in which CRS is acting in deliberate and direct violation of Catholic teaching on life, marriage and sexuality.  Given that CRS has been distributing abortifacients and contraceptives in third-world countries, Woo and Schnellnhuber seem to be of like mind when it comes to eliminating people from this planet.  In a saner time, these individuals would not be assisting in the roll-out of a papal encyclical.

On another related matter, we know that the encyclical was leaked, with all sorts of details released that further illustrate the thinking of progressives that skulk in the corridors of the Vatican.  Besides what I cited yesterday, there are calls for "wealth redistribution" (by whom, one might ask!) to combat global warming, quotes by Teilhard de Chardin and Muslim leaders, etc.  The Pollyanna Damage Control Squad immediately jumped into full alert.  They blame these statements on the fact that what was released was a draft, not the final version.  Well, be that as it may, one might ask "how on earth did this rank heresy get so far as to be committed to a Vatican draft?"  The heresies - and heretics - should have been immediately jettisoned, not put to paper.  But of course we remember the relatio from October's sin-nod, so we know that heresy can well find its way to church documents these days.

Here are further details from GloriaTV.

Laudato Si Has Been Leaked

Reports state that L'Espresso has obtained a draft copy of the thing in the Italian language.  The Vatican "deplores" the leak, calling it a "heinous act".  That might be arguably true since it seems the entire document is itself a heinous act.

The English is not yet out (to the best of my knowledge) but here are some snippets.  Warning!  Some of these translations will have leftist leanings; of course, given what we know so far of this encyclical, these translations may well be accurate.  That doesn't mean they are factually correct, just accurate with regard to the text of the encyclical itself.  Here are some takes from National Journal; here's some from the Guardian and from the Independent.

As you read these things, it does seem that the pope has been hoodwinked into following the "man caused all this global warming and we will all die if we don't stop making carbon footprints right now!" hysteria.  At least I hope he's being hoodwinked and not deliberately colluding with the one-world-government progressives like Jeffrey Sachs.  At any rate, he has joined the progressive clamor for one-world government and population control.  Take a look at the second comment from the Independent site.  The commenter is calling on the church, in light of the Vatican's erroneous embrace of the junk science to "halt population growth" and even "reduce population"; as horrid as that sounds, it is a logical "next step" to the mental brain-rot that seems to underlie this encyclical.  As stated before, "population control" is explicitly called for by the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences.

We even see hints of earth-worship in this mess.  At the beginning, the thing says, "the earth is protesting for the wrong that we are doing to her, because of the irresponsible use and abuse of the goods that God has placed on her."  Time for some basic thoughts on what constitutes personhood.  The earth is a planet: an inanimate object.  Inanimate objects, not being persons, do not protest.  They are not sentient beings and they have neither voice nor rights.  Any inanimate object, in the singular, has the impersonal pronoun "it" assigned to it: not the personal pronouns "she" or "her".  Got that?  Sheesh!  One can wonder why he didn't go all the way and call the earth "gaia".

Elsewhere in the document the pope stated,  "in this encyclical, I especially propose to enter into discussion with everyone regarding our common home."  No he doesn't.  He means to use the weight of his holy office to cram a progressive agenda down our throats.  As for "discussion", see this post for treatment that the Vatican meted out to Lord Christopher Monckton and other scientists who oppose the "climate change" scam.  In that post, I voiced my opinion that the Holy Father, by throwing the weight of the papacy behind global warming, is prostituting the dignity and authority of the Chair of Peter.  I not only stand behind by statement, I reiterate it.

The Independent article erroneously claims that an encyclical is the "highest level of teaching document a pope can issue".  Not true.  It is not solemnly proclaimed dogma.  Mark Rhoads put out a nice summary of the differences; rather than reinvent the wheel I link to it now.  Not even the science that the pope seems to invoke is behind the wacky theory of global warming.  We are not bound in conscience to swallow that kool-aid in order to be a Catholic in good standing.  I for one won't.

Oh, by the way.  The leak of the encyclical was called a "heinous act".  Here's another one, with heinous acting to boot. It probably has the Vatican's "bimbo video" beat for cheesiness.  It's from an envirowhacko group in Brasil called Observatorio Do Clima.  As you watch this, bear in mind that they're serious and obviously think this tripe is the greatest thing since "life's bread".  If they think this waste of bandwidth is going to inspire anything but uproarious laughter, the delusion is worse than I imagined.  Here goes..

Key Reason Why The United Nations Needs Laudato Si

The clip below is an interview given by Lord Christopher Monckton in July 2014.  In it he outlines some fallacies behind the global warming schtick.  He also makes plain that the schtick is, at heart, a pretense by which the United Nations and its cohorts can advance one-world government at the expense of human rights and liberties.

At the time this interview was given, there was very little indication that Pope Francis was going to jump into the fray on the side of one-world government.  Monckton did say that quite a few people are waking up to the farce that is global warming.  I've no doubt that the UN/Soros types understand this too, to their chagrin.  Is it any wonder, now, why they'd want the pope to lend the weight of the Catholic Church to their thinly-disguised seizure of power?

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.