On October 3, we celebrated the Feast of St Francis of Assisi. If anyone heard a rumble from his grave, well, there's good cause for it. That "rumble" would have been occasioned by the release of Laudate Deum, an apostolic exhortation that is in reality nothing more than a deliberate attempt to whip up more "climate change" hysteria. The first few verses are spent in vain attempts to breathe new life into tired, worn-out talking points regarding climate change: rising sea levels, melting glaciers, barely perceptible temperature increases and other "cries of protests on the part of the earth". That last quote is from section 5 of this ungodly tome. By the way - only a person can protest anything, for there must be intent to protest. Someone close to Francis should remind him that planets are not sentient beings and such talk is indicative of sloppy philosophy and/or theology.
Big carbon footprint here! For shame!
He also spills a lot of ink on paper as he whines that "some have chosen to deride these facts". That's the start of his section 6-7 screed against those of us who refuse to swallow the pabulum that he and his progressive accomplices continually try to pour down our throats. But, as they say, we encounter flak when we're above target. This sort of sniveling is actually encouraging to read, for it means that we are having some success in thwarting their nefarious, one-world-government, new-order schemes.
In section 10, he takes some swipes against those big, bad fossil fuels. I'm curious! How does he think all those sin-nod delegates traveled to that carbon-footprint-increasing gab-fest? The picture to the right (from EWTN) is that of the sin-nod in session. You better believe the temperature is being kept at comfortable levels. Now look at all that high-tech? Everyone has their own tablet, and each table has four screens in the center. Lots of electricity is being used. Is all that power coming from windmills? I didn't think so, either!
In section 15, we read about "irreversible effects of the climate crisis". Francis bemoans the myth that "other creatures of the world have stopped being our companions along the way and have become instead our victims". My! Doesn't that just make you feel icky for being a human being? I think that's by intent. Again, we see the heretical personification of non-human entities.
In section 35, he shills for a one-world government. In section 39, he lauds postmodern culture - by name! Postmodern thinkers tend to deny the existence of objective reality and objective moral values. And this "pope" praises that?? More commentary from LifeSiteNews.
Let's do a word count, shall we? Here they are!
God - 11 times
Climate - 33 times
Jesus - 3 times
temperature - 9 times
global - 27 times
church - 1 time
melt - 4 times
environment - 10 times
I could go on, but you see the priorities of this pseudo-pontificate quite clearly.
Paul Joseph Watson is a British commentator who has posted a number of spot-on commentaries. In this one, he pulls no punches when it comes to elaborating on Pope Francis' complicity with the demonic one-world government, and the obvious "mark of the beast" known as the Covid vaccines. Yes it is plural for there are more than one; they do seem to be increasing in numbers every time one turns around.
There is some colorful language in this clip, but in all honesty I think it accurately reflects today's realities.
Today's episode of the Anchor Team gives much-needed food for thought and some historical perspective on current events not only here, but throughout the world.
The US Catholic bishops, as a whole, never fail - to disappoint, that is. The USCCB is holding its semi-annual meeting virtually. We can be grateful that they aren't squandering thousands of Catholic dollars to flit off to swanky hotels, wine and dine to their content, and confab about all their latest progressive schemes. Well, they are doing the latter virtually.
Earlier this week one of them put out the following tweet regarding this virtual gabfest. Now what strikes you about this tweet? One of my facebook friends remarked that the bishops aren't serious men. I replied that they may not be men, period. He agreed that I might have a point. Upon further reflection, I think the cause for this tweet is a bit more ominous. What they don't take seriously is the Sacrament of Holy Orders, with its attendant gifts and responsibilities to fulfill the charges laid upon them by Christ Himself. I cannot say they don't take their vocations seriously because there is reason to doubt that many of them had authentic vocations at all. Recall that Bella Dodd, stated that the Communist party deliberately set out to insinuate unsuitable guys (I won't call them men) into the priesthood and ultimately the episcopate with the stated goal of undermining Holy Mother Church. No wonder they have no problem uttering such flippant statements. The tweet has since been taken down after they received much understandable backlash.
A few days prior to that, Archbishop Gomez, president of the USCCB, congratulated Biden on his alleged "win". Of course he's ignoring the obvious voter fraud and the subsequent legal challenges that Trump and his legal team are filing, acting falsely as though the media has constitutional authority to declare the winner of an election.
The case of Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville, TN is rather curious. Earlier, he had been chastising Biden for his support of baby-slaughter. Now, however, he has changed his tune. One could believe that a few of his "brother" bishops twisted his arm and told him to get with the program. Well, he did. He is calling on President Trump to concede defeat. He even went so far as to cite the presidential election of 60 years ago, when Nixon conceded to Kennedy although it was clear that someone cheated on Kennedy's behalf and perhaps at Kennedy's request. Apparently Stika claims that it's "love of country" to allow millions of Trump supporters to be disenfranchised of their right to vote. The logic he espoused is so convoluted that it's clear that he's trying to justify his own cowardice in the face of those who are either blackmailing or bribing him to change his tone.
So it sure looks like the USCCB is clearly shilling for a Biden victory. They are clearly on board the progressive global reset train. I'm going to post below a podcast that Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute just did a few hours ago. Please listen and pass this along. This whole attempt to steal the election from Donald Trump - and the USCCB is on board with that - is greatly desired by the progressives, both in secular society and in the Vatican in order to move along their one-world-government reset. Keep on praying your Rosaries.
The pope released his latest 45,000-word tome today. It's called "Fratelli Tutti". That link is to the English version on the Vatican website. Others have already started to wade through it and their reports reveal it to be a hot mess of freemasonry, envirowhackosim, one-world government nonsense, etc.
In the third paragraph, the pope twists the narrative of St Francis of Assisi's meeting with the sultan. He claims that the saint's "openness of heart..transcended differences of religion". Nothing could be further from the truth. He went to preach Jesus Christ and the One True Faith to the Moslems. To understand that the Catholic Church is the One True Church is to acknowledge that other religions are false. In paragraph 5, he sings the praises of his own lapse into religious indifferentism a few months ago. Notice that the title of my post mentions the accolades that this blunder of the pope got from the masons. There is much in Fruitti Tutti that is obviously masonic.
The next few paragraphs contain blather in vague language, but clear enough that one can detect the pope's detest of the free market system - a system that has actually lifted more people out of poverty than all the other sorts.
However, we get to paragraphs 37-41, where the pope adopts the progressive habit of conflating the topics of lawful immigration versus border-crashers. This is patently dishonest. To portray good people who are opposed to having to bear the financial brunt of border crashers as heartless xenophobes is nothing short of slanderous.
I am now just examining this thing and don't have time just now to read this entire verbose monstrosity. I will return to this in future posts, but suggest you have a look for yourselves. The link is in the first paragraph. I will point out some highlights I noticed while I skimmed it.
Paragraphs 119-120 are a thinly-disguised attack on the concept of private property. He fails - or refuses to see that the right to private property is an adjunct to the right to life itself.
Following those paragraphs we see an attack on the concept of national borders.
Paragraphs 172-173 are an attempt to insinuate the concept of one-world government.
Paragraph 263 repeats the erroneous call to end the death penalty. Therefore it is heretical on its face, most likely rendering Fruitti Tutti to be heresy.
Chapter 8's title starts with "Religion at the Service of Fraternty.." Stop right there! That is NOT the purpose of religion - at least not the One True Religion. Its purpose is to worship God and facilitate eternal salvation. Fraternity can only come about when people are united in faith in Jesus Christ as revealed through His Church. Anything else is a cheap, sentimental facade of the same. But maybe there is a reason why "fraternity" is being elevated to the level of de facto idol!
Paragraph 103 starts a section entitled "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". That phrase will send chills down the spine of anyone knowledgeable about modern history, namely, of the French revolution. Its motto was Liberté, Unité, Égalité. How many thousands went to the guillotine in the names of those so-called ideals? Surely the pope and his ghost-writers cannot be so ignorant of that history, can they? Or is the pope giving some tacit acknowledgment to freemasonry? Even the masons themselves will acknowledge their role in the French Revolution. Recall how they applauded that agreement that the pope signed with the muslim leader a few months back.
As I meander through this verbose gobblygoop, I will have more to say. Suffice it to say that we must continue to pray our Rosaries and beg Our Lady to join us as we intercede for the Church.
A few days ago, Kansas City Mayor Quintin Lucas ordered churches to turn over names and addresses of all those who attended their worship services. Obviously that is an action that one might expect to find in Red China, but not in the United States. Many good people thought the same thing too, when this news went viral. Realizing he was not going to escape public scrutiny, the less-than-illustrious mayor backpedaled his order. Similarly, we all heard the saga of Shelly Luther, the Dallas hair stylist who was sentenced to 7 days in jail for opening her salon. It seems that she believed that she and her employees needed to work to feed their families. Read the account of her trial before an Obama-appointed judge who ordered her to apologize. She refused. Governor Abbott ordered her released. We hope some of that common sense prevails in Michigan, where a homeowner faces 93 days in jail for growing a vegetable garden in her yard. How on earth a vegetable garden could ever spread any disease is beyond me. I hope the woman sues.
Recently, US Attorney General Barr announced that it's time to roll back the draconian restrictions that have been placed on US citizens by state and local governments. He stated quite clearly that "the Bill of Rights doesn't go away during a crisis". In many ways he echoed the words that US Congressman Andy Harris spoke to us this past Saturday in Salisbury.
We now read the news that Chicago pastors plan to reopen their churches, regardless of the dictates of the mayor. Sadly, but not at all suprisingly, no Catholic clerics joined these courageous pastors. I've outlined in previous posts some of the despicable antics of our prelates, no need to rehash that here.
These two cardinals, along with other prelates and leading Catholics, have issued a warning to the world in light of the covid pandemic. They see clearly that this is being used to insinuate a dangerous, one-world government that is all-encompassing and tyranical, and to destroy western civilization. They state so quite clearly. All should read it, especially those good pro-lifers who are all too willing to give our politicians a pass on their encroachments on our civil liberties. This simplistic, passive stance towards the events of the past two weeks is very dangerous. I've stated before that we've forgotten who we are as Catholics and as US citizens.
The various protests give hopeful signs that some are starting to wake up. What faithful Catholics need to do is understand that many of our prelates are in cahoots in the attempt to establish this one world government, about which Cardinals Zen, Muller and others warn. There is much more to world events than meets the eye. We must pray to have our eyes opened and to have the courage and vision to do what needs to be done.
As part of my efforts to glean and report on events vital to the Church, I peruse Facebook. On it I encounter all sorts of people from the truly concerned fathful Catholic to clueless and obstinate people. Those people are what we call the "far left" and "far right". For the purpose of this post, I'll focus on the latter, for I think their spewings can cause the most confusion among other faithful Catholics who are trying to sort through the mess made by progressives throughout the years.
Every once in a while these "rad trads" will spew nonsense that hearkens to Catholic-sounding stuff that isn't really Catholic. For instance, they often will rail against free speech, claiming that "error has no rights". From then they will segue into the evils of the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. They claim that the First Amendment is how the United States government gives approval for pornography and religious errors.
Let's look at the First Amendment. I'll quote it here, as it isn't too long.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So where, oh where, is all this express allowance for pornography and the such? I don't see it. The Founding Fathers never insinuated that all speech is moral. They simply stated that it is not the role of Federal Government to decide those matters. The first 10 amendments are collectively known asa the Bill of Rights. Their primary function is to place limits on the powers of the Federal Government. That's it.
This same First Amendment means that these "rad trads" can spew such nonsense against their government, and not fear any reprisal. I'm sure that they take their free speech rights for granted. I'm also sure that this irony escapes them.
Then they'll whine on about the Constitution not being founded on Catholic principles. Well, of course it wasn't because Catholics have always been a minority in this country. Admittedly I would like to see more Catholicism in the Constitution. However, there is a way to fix that, and that is by amendment to the Constitution - a process put in place by those "evil" founding fathers. But that entails getting involved in US political processes, and here again is where "rad trads" engage in massive mental disconnects.
There are a few of them who actually hold to something called the "divine right of kings". Believing that ordinary citizens should have no say, they will rail against the heresy of Americanism. Yes, that actually is a heresy, but not what they think it is. They will cite Pope Leo XIII's letter to Cardinal Gibbons in 1899 titled Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae as their authority. Ok. I linked to it. Let's take a look at it. Leo is cautioning the US bishops against several specific matters:
The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith.
the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty
From this disregard of the – angelical virtues, erroneously styled passive, the step was a short one to a contempt of the religious life which has in some degree taken hold of minds. That such a value is generally held by the upholders of new views, we infer from certain statements concerning the vows which religious orders take. They say vows are alien to the spirit of our times, in that they limit the bounds of human liberty; that they are more suitable to weak than ›o strong minds; that so far from making for human perfection and the good of human organization
Read the letter for yourselves. I see no indication that the pope was condemning our system of government outright (by the way, it is a constitutional republic, not a democracy). In fact he remained totally neutral on it as a system of civil government. He did NOT yap and yammer about the "divine right of kings".
One favorite bone of contention is about elections, and the fact that often very flawed men are running for the same office. In a given election, both candidates may support intrinsic evils, but to widely varying extents. Regardless of these facts, they simply refuse to vote, to participate in that election whatsoever. They claim that they cannot support evil, no matter how much "evil" is involved. They fail - or refuse to - acknowledge that a vote is not always about advocacy but can be simply damage control. I thought that such obstinacy was simply being simplistic, but the ferocity and bombastic stances that they take cause me to suspect that a good deal of virtue-signalling may be occuring. The most recent "case in point" was the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. I've written much in the past to illustrate that it was a moral evil to deny Trump one's vote; I needn't rehash it all now as you can go to this collection of my previous posts.
I will now post a video done by Michael Matt of the Remnant TV. He points out that after this Amazon Synod, the masks are coming off the progressives in the Vatican - and that includes the pope. They are attempting to implement the Sustainable Develop goals of the United Nations, a dream of theirs for quite a while. They knew that they had some formidable obstacles that stood in the way of their "one world rule" goal. One of them was the Catholic Church so they worked for years to subvert it. This synod is a clear sign that they have the pope on their side. Another obstacle to them is the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump. They are now working to undermine him, as he is succeeding in his goals of strengthening the USA against its outside adversaries, making it less likely that the USA will swallow the "one world rule" mantra. That is why the progressive USCCB recently lamented Trump's decision to pull the US out of that insidious Paris Agreement. They aim to derail Trump's work.
Obviously they will want to defeat Trump in the 2020 elections. The progresives will pull no stops to do so. The real question is, will these #nevertrump "rad-trads" be able to see past their egotistic virtue-signaling, or will they be willing dupes of the progressives as they seek to remove one of their few obstacles to global dominance? Now the video follows..
Well, in order to advance a socialistic one-world government where the government is seen as the master that meets all needs, one must try to usurp the One True God and His Church. That is done effectively by undermining her teachings and traditions. We see today that the pope is taking pot-shots at priestly celibacy and tinkering with the order of Mass. We've seen how Amoris Laetitia insinuates the idea that adulterers can receive Holy Communion.
Of course, at the beginning of his papacy we saw his disregard for ceremonial traditions such as the papal slippers, the apartments, etc. Ladies and gentlemen, while these things seem minor, they are traditions that link the current occupant of Peter's chair to a legacy and responsibility that far transcends what might be his own preferences. Pope Francis thumbed his nose at these. Now we see that these so-called minor snubs were only precursors to much more dangerous problems.
I hope that by now, most thinking people have their eyes wide open. Let us pray and be prepared to speak out.
Pope Francis, several weeks ago, stated plainly that he wants to see an end to national sovereignty and the establishment of a world-wide government. In practical terms, that would mean ascribing authority to the United Nations to encroach upon national governments as the latter tries to address the interests of its citizens. He used the progressive talking points of both climate change and massive, unbridled immigration as excuses to bring about a globalist monstrosity. If the pope has his way, we in the US and elsewhere would have unbridled baby-slaughter shoved down our throats.
A week or two after that at the Rome Life Forum, Cardinal Burke flat out contradicted the pope regarding one-world government, rightly calling it "not just and legitimate" and noting that one-world government would be by definition totalitarian. Moreover, he pointed out that patriotism is an extension of the Fourth Commandment, as is limiting Muslim immigration.
Cardinal Sarah also offered correction to positions espoused by the pope and others. Last month, he pointed out that the call for unfettered immigration is "a false exegesis to use the word of God to promote migration. God never wanted these heartbreaks." He was stating that defending migration is a misinterpretation of Gospels by priests and bishops "bewitched" by political and social issues. I might also point out that the direction of the "bewitching" exclusively tends toward the direction of progressive and anti-God proponents, and that the "misinterpretation" is quite deliberate and thus malicious.
Thankfully more people are waking up to the perils of a one-world government. The member countries of the European Union held elections this week, with conservatives gaining significant ground in Europe. Also see here and here. Immediately the pope whined about the election results, blaming "intolerance" and "racism". Gee! Why does that sound familiar? Shades of November 2016! Harping on the same theme, the pope, during an interview, compared the wall along our southern border to the Berlin Wall. I suppose it didn't dawn on him that our wall is to keep out border crashers while the Berlin Wall served to imprison people within the east part of the city. He then said he didn't understand "this new culture of defending territory by building a wall". Is he serious? Is he truly that ignorant of world history? Perhaps he should take a look at that structure that surrounds Vatican City! Walls like this have existed for centuries!
But the Vatican isn't only being bested on the political front. Several leaders of nationalist bents are displaying and honoring their Catholic heritages. The presidents of Brazil and Italy have both consecrated their nations to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Recall that Our Lady of Fatima requested that Russia be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. To date, the popes (not just Francis) have refused to do so.
Let us pray that more and more Catholics wake up and rediscover the One True Faith, for now it seems that the pope and the Vatican have forgotten it. Pray that they too will return to the Faith.
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'sright 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.
The Fatima Center, on its youtube page, has quite a few informative videos. I post one now, of a talk given by Elizabeth Yore, an attorney whose research uncovered evidence of links between Pope Francis, the United Nations, and George Soros. She also underscores how the aim of One World Government is being furthered under the cloak of environmentalism. Michael Voris touched upon the anti-life philosophy behind environmentalism in one of his exposes. That episode was produced while Pope Benedict XVI was still on the Chair of Peter so the Vatican had not been completely turned over to the Soros cabal. After Pope Francis ascended, we saw quite an ominous display of the worship of environmentalism; how that display could have been more blatant I don't know.
Yore concludes by stating that we must do our part in waking up Catholics in the pew, many of them oblivious to the warfare for their Church and their very souls. That means you! See here an example of that from Cardinal Burke.
This past Friday I wrote a bit about the blasphemous "crucifix" offered to the Pope by Bolivian president Evo Morales. In the blogosphere there was doubt as to whether or not the Pope looked favorably upon that monstrosity. Subsequent events indicate that he did.
The pope also gave an address to a summit of "social justice" activists. The full textcan be found on Whispers In The Loggia. This blogger points out that this address of the pope was actually written out, complete with footnotes; it's not just some "off-the-cuff" production. I urge you to read it. Quite frankly, it resembles something we might have expected at some community-organizing ACORN convention.
In the first section, he asks a series of questions, each starting with the phrase "do we realize that something is wrong" then names some social ills. None of these questions touches upon the millions of unborn children being slaughtered in the womb. We see no mention of the ever-increasing usage of contraception and sterilization. Neither do we see any mention of the homosexual assault upon marriage. Of all the things that the pope lists as "intolerable" these mortal sins should top the list, for in addition to endangering the souls of all who commit these sins, they also undermine the moral underpinnings of any society, regardless of the economic condition of that society.
What you have here is a thinly-disguised commercial for Laudato Si and for world-wide government - a socialistic one at that. Time had some commentary on this exchange. Yes the author is waxing lyrical about the progressive elements in the events of that day. Sadly I can understand how she would draw such conclusions.
There is a rather distasteful twist to the bauble saga. Before he left Bolivia, he placed the "hammer/sickle crucifix" and its matching medal at the foot of a statue of Our Lady. It would have been far more appropriate to lay these abominations in the nearest trash can. So now not only is Jesus blasphemed but His mother is similarly mocked as well.
It now seems that what we once thought were simply unfortunate gaffes and media spins were in fact representative of what the progressives in the Vatican really want - and that probably includes the pope! We do have Christ's promise that the pope will never solemnly promulgate error, but that doesn't mean havoc cannot otherwise be wreaked. Pray, frequent the Sacraments and study the traditions of our faith.
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 Guardianand 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..
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?
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.
.png)
