by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
In 2013, shortly after he was elected, Francis I joked with Cardinals
saying,“May God forgive you for what you've done.”
 |
| Francis I |
The highly anticipated "encyclical", Laudato Si’, came
out on the 17th of June, 2015. Before we proceed to discuss
what the document is all about it is necessary that we first of all enquire
what an encyclical really is. Put simply, an encyclical is a
teaching document issued by the pope. Encyclicals are among the more solemn and
thus more authoritative papal documents. It is a letter written by a Pope to a
particular audience of bishops. The audience of bishops may be all of the
bishops in a specific country or all of the Catholic Bishops in all countries
throughout the world. Virtually all encyclicals in the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries are usually addressed to all the Patriarchs,
Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic world.
A more complete description can be found in the Catholic Encyclopaedia
entry Encyclical:
According to its etymology, an encyclical (from the Greek egkyklios,
kyklos meaning a circle) is nothing more than a circular letter. In
modern times, usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain
papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary
style of either Bulls or Briefs, and which in their superscription are
explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of
the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See. By
exception, encyclicals are also sometimes addressed to the archbishops and
bishops of a particular country.”
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Bulls
and Briefs further explains other papal documents:
“In official language papal documents have at all times been called by various names, more or less descriptive of their character. For example, there are "constitutions," i.e., decisions addressed to all the faithful and determining some matter of faith or discipline; "encyclicals," which are letters sent to all the bishops of Christendom, or at least to all those in one particular country, and intended to guide them in their relations with their flocks; "decrees," pronouncements on points affecting the general welfare of the Church; "decretals" (epistolae decretales), which are papal replies to some particular difficulty submitted to the Holy See, but having the force of precedents to rule on all analogous cases. "Rescript," again, is a form applicable to almost any form of Apostolic letter which has been elicited by some previous appeal, while the nature of a "privilege" speaks for itself. But all these, down to the fifteenth century, seem to have been expedited by the papal chancery in the shape of bulls authenticated with leaden seals, and it is common enough to apply the term bull even to those very early papal letters of which we know little more than the substance, independently of the forms under which they were issued.
The main point we are trying to raise here is the fact that
papal encyclicals—and indeed some other papal documents just mentioned—are
simply letters addressed to those within the Catholic Church, and not to those
outside the Catholic Church. Now just a sample: Pope Pius X’s encyclical PASCENDIDOMINICI GREGIS starts thus:
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS
ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS
To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops,
Bishops
and other Local Ordinaries in Peace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.
and other Local Ordinaries in Peace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.
Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic
Benediction.
The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock has
especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the
greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting
the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.
There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was
not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of
the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse
things" (Acts xx. 30), "vain talkers
and seducers" (Tit. i. 10), "erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the
number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased
exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to
destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly
Christ's kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should
seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope
of wiser counsels, We have hitherto
shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.
Like this, all the encyclicals of the 19th and early 20th centuries are
lucid and clear, and likewise those of the previous ages. Their purpose is to
expound Catholic doctrine and defend it against modern errors, which they do
very admirably. Yes. Pope Pius XII, the last universally acknowledged supreme
head of the Catholic Church, taught that the encyclical was the normative means
by which the Roman Pontiff exercised his teaching office.
When we get to Vatican II, however, a noticeable change—indeed a deadly
one—comes about. “Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make
use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that
she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her
teaching rather than by condemnations,” so said Vatican II pope John
XXIII, a man rumoured by some to be a Freemason. And so it started! This
principle has effected the manner in which the post-1965 ecclesia docens functions. As someone puts it, “essentially,
the post-Conciliar encyclical doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows
up.” Vatican II popes have still utilized them as a means of “teaching”, but
rather than teaching what Catholic doctrine consists of, they have,
apart from their subtle attacks on Catholic doctrines, increasingly become occasions
for popes to explain why “Catholic doctrine” is what it is;
however, not that they really explain what Catholic doctrine is, they have, in
the process, always explained exactly what it is not! The declarative
aspect of the encyclical has simply been discarded. And many Catholics who are
observing what is happening falsely believe that these popes are doing this
merely in their overly optimistic hope that if we could just explain our
teaching to the world—just work them through our thinking step by step—then maybe the
world would accept the Church's message. Maybe if we simply “proposed” our
rationale for belief humbly instead of declaring that we “had” the truth, the
world would reciprocate and enter into a “fruitful dialogue” with Christianity
that would mutually enrich everybody.
Yes, they are doing something like this, but it is also important
not to forget easily that these popes, out of their own free will, have
vehemently rejected some core doctrines of the Catholic Church. All of them
held heretical opinions even before they ascended the papal throne (In fact, a
careful study has shown that it was because of these heretical opinions that
they were actually elected by the cardinals). For instance, at Vatican II, Archbishop Carol Wojtyla, the future
John Paul II, commenting on missionary activity in the Church, said: “It is not the role of the Church to lecture
unbelievers. We are engaged in a search along with our fellow men—let us avoid
moralizing or the suggestion that we have a monopoly of truth.” As Pope he repeated this in his abominable encyclical Ut unum sint and spoke often of the possibility of the
universal salvation of all men. Similarly, in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio, John Paul II stated that “salvation
is accessible in mysterious ways–even to those who are not members of the
Church or have not received the Gospel proclamation–insomuch as divine grace is
granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice.” This is a clear and unambiguous denial of the
Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. As we
read in the Athanasian Creed—a Solemn Definition:
“Whoever wishes to be saved must before all else adhere to the Catholic
Faith. He must preserve this Faith whole and inviolate; otherwise he shall most
certainly perish in eternity”.
Now back to the evil document. First, unlike the Popes’ encyclicals such
as that of Pope Pius X cited above, Jorge Bergoglio’s “encyclical” is not addressed
specifically to the Catholic Bishops. Instead, it is addressed to every person
on the planet! This means that, unlike any previous encyclical, only a minority
of its intended audience is Catholic! Francis’ “encyclical” starts thus:
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
LAUDATO SI’
OF THE HOLY FATHER
FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME
LAUDATO SI’
OF THE HOLY FATHER
FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME
LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” –
“Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this
beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is
like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her
arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother
Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with
coloured flowers and herbs”.
Including a brief introduction, the document comprises six chapters: 1.
What Is Happening to Our Common Home 2. The Gospel of Creation; 3. The Human
Roots of the Ecological Crisis; 4. Integral Ecology; 5. Lines of Approach and
Action; 6. Ecological Education and Spirituality. The document concludes with
two prayers, one that can be said by all who believe in God—Catholics and
non-Catholics—as the all-powerful Creator and one that is meant to be said
specifically by “Christians”—that is, Catholics and Protestants.
The first chapter of the document is devoted to a summary of the various
environmental problems Francis 1 sees the world facing, and his summary is
based on scientific studies rather than theological documents. When he does
begin focusing in a sustained way on “Church teaching”, in the second chapter,
he begins with a note explaining why a document addressed to so many
nonbelievers would have a chapter specifically devoted to religious belief. In
fact, in paragraph 62 he asks: “Why
should this document, addressed to all people of good will, include a chapter
dealing with the convictions of believers?” Again, and related to the
former, unlike Catholic encyclicals, the “encyclical” does not simply propose
views that all are expected to accept because of the pope’s religious
authority. Instead, he invites the people of the world to a dialogue on the
subject of environmentalism, writing: “In this encyclical, I would like to
enter into dialogue with all people about our common home”.
Here Jorge Bergoglio, like his fellow Vatican II heretics such as John
Paul II and Benedict XVI, is subtly denying the catholic nature of the Church.
By posing the question: “Why should this document, addressed to all people
of good will, include a chapter dealing with the convictions of believers?” he
is falsely giving the impression that Catholicism is just like any other
religion in the world and that our faith as Catholics—like those of
non-Catholics—is just a matter of our personal convictions which may be
true or false.
In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, Francis 1 quotes John XXIII, Paul VI, John
Paul II and then Benedict XVI as popes who also spoke about climate change. Of
course that has been a major characteristic of Vatican II popes. They quote
their fellow heretics to back up their evil teachings—you can never see them
quoting pre-Vatican II popes on any serious issue. According to him, John
XXIII “addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire “Catholic
world” and indeed “to all men and women of good will” (meaning
non-Catholics as well).
Again, “In
1971, eight years after Pacem in Terris, Blessed
Pope Paul VI referred to the ecological concern as “a tragic
consequence” of unchecked human activity: “Due to an ill-considered
exploitation of nature, humanity runs the risk of destroying it and becoming in
turn a victim of this degradation”. He spoke in similar terms to the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations about the potential for an
“ecological catastrophe under the effective explosion of industrial
civilization”, and stressed “the urgent need for a radical change in the
conduct of humanity”, inasmuch as “the most extraordinary scientific advances,
the most amazing technical abilities, the most astonishing economic growth,
unless they are accompanied by authentic social and moral progress, will
definitively turn against man”.
Again, “Saint John Paul II became increasingly
concerned about this issue. In his first Encyclical he warned that human beings
frequently seem “to see no other meaning in their natural environment than what
serves for immediate use and consumption”. Subsequently, he would call for a
global ecological conversion. At the same time, he noted that little
effort had been made to “safeguard the moral conditions for an
authentic human ecology”.
Then, “My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed “eliminating
the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting
models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the
environment”. He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only
one of its aspects, since “the book of nature is one and indivisible”, and
includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so
forth. It follows that “the deterioration of nature is closely connected to the
culture which shapes human coexistence”. Pope Benedict asked us to
recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our
irresponsible behaviour.”
Francis 1 then tells us that “These statements of the Popes echo the
reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians and civic groups,
all of which have enriched the Church’s thinking on these questions. Outside
the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities—and other
religions as well—have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections
on issues which all of us find disturbing.” He then proceeds quickly to
cite non-Catholics, particularly the schismatic “Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew, with whom we share the hope of full ecclesial communion.”
Notice his belief that “Outside the Catholic Church”, there exist “other
Churches and Christian communities—and other religions as well”.
The heretical notion that there are “churches” outside the Catholic
Church originated from Vatican II. At Vatican II, as part of the Vatican-Moscow
Agreement otherwise known as the Metz Pact, John XXIII of unfortunate memory,
after burying the Third Secret of Fatima, invited two Russian Orthodox
“ministers” (that is, two formal heretics and schismatics) to attend the
Council, and these formal heretics and schismatics all contributed to formulate
the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council. Since then, Modernist Priests,
Bishops, Cardinals and Popes have simply polluted—and are still polluting—the
minds of the faithful with the new doctrine that ecumenism is for both
Catholics and their worst enemies, the Protestant heretics and the Schismatics.
Vatican II’s heresies on ecumenism are mostly found in the document Unitatis Redintegratio. In no 1 of the
document we read:
“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal
concerns of the Second Vatican Synod.”
This assertion is simply anti-Catholic: Unity of all Christians does not
need to be restored because all Christians are already united in the Catholic
Church. There is no such thing as a non-Catholic Christian, but by “all
Christians” the Council was of course referring to heretics, that is, the
enemies of Catholicism who are outside the Catholic Church. Pope Pius IX, on
November 21, 1873, wrote:
“Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the
pseudo-bishop Novatian even the title of bishop, on the grounds that he was cut
off and separated from the Church of Christ. “Whoever he is”, he says, “and
whatever sort he is, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of
Christ.””
Contrary to Francis’ view that there are churches outside the Catholic
Church, St. Augustine, the greatest Catholic theologian after St. Paul, and
Father of Western Church, writing in the fifth century of the Christian era when
men were abandoning paganism to embrace the Catholic Faith, tells us that it is
the Devil himself, and not God, who inspires non-Catholic “churches” . He
writes:
 |
| St. Augustine |
“The devil, however, seeing that the temples
of demons were being abandoned, and that the human race was hastening to take
the name of the Mediator who sets men free, stirred up heretics to oppose
Christian doctrine—though they bore the Christian name—as if they could be
retained indiscriminately in the city of God without reproof, just as the city
of confusion retained indifferently the philosophers who held diverse and
contradictory opinions. Just so there are those in the church of Christ who
have a taste for some unhealthy and perverse notions, and who if reproved—in
the hope that they may acquire a taste for what is wholesome and
right—obstinately resist and refuse to correct their pestilent and deadly
dogmas and persist in defending them. These become heretics and, when they part
company with the church, they are classed among the enemies who provide
discipline for her. Even so, they undoubtedly benefit by their wickedness the
genuine, catholic members of Christ, since God makes good use even of the
wicked, and ‘makes all things cooperate for good for those who love Him’. In
fact, all the enemies of the church, however blinded by error or depraved by
wickedness, train the church in patient endurance if they are given the power
of inflicting bodily harm, while if they oppose her only by their perverse
notions they train her in wisdom. Moreover, they train her in benevolence, or
even beneficence, so that love may be shown even to enemies, whether this takes
the form of persuasive teaching or of stern discipline”. (De
Civ. Dei, Bk. Xviii, 51).
The original Latin reads:
“Videns
autem diabolus templa daemonum deseri et in nomen liberantis Mediatoris currere
genus humanum, haereticos movit, qui sub vocabulo christiano doctrinae
resisterent christianae, quasi possent indifferenter sine ulla correptione
haberi in civitate Dei, sicut civitas confusionis indifferenter habuit
philosophos inter se diversa et adversa sentientes. Qui ergo in Ecclesia
Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque sapiunt, si correpti, ut sanum rectumque
sapiant, resistunt contumaciter suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare
nolunt, sed defensare persistunt, haeretici fiunt et foras exeuntes habentur in
exercentibus inimicis. Etiam sic quippe veris illis catholicis membris Christi
malo suo prosunt, dum Deus utitur et malis bene et diligentibus eum omnia
cooperatur in bonum. Inimici enim omnes Ecclesiae, quolibet errore caecentur
vel malitia depraventur, si accipiunt potestatem corporaliter affligendi,
exercent eius patientiam; si tantummodo male sentiendo adversantur, exercent
eius sapientiam; ut autem etiam inimici diligantur, exercent eius benevolentiam
aut etiam beneficentiam, sive suadibili doctrina cum eis agatur sive terribili
disciplina.”
Francis 1, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI hold the
heretical view that Protestants are Christians. Again, St. Augustine
contradicts them. He writes:
“For we must not imagine that there can be
any time when this saying of the same teacher fails to be true: ‘All who want
to live a devout life in Christ suffer persecution’. Because even when those
outside do not rage and there seems to be, and really is, tranquillity, which
brings great consolation especially to the weak, even so there are always some,
inside indeed there are many, who by their unprincipled behaviour torment the
feelings of those who live devout lives. For such people cause the name of
‘Christian’ and ‘Catholic’ to be defamed. And the dearer this name is to
those who want to live a devout life in Christ, the more they grieve that
evildoers within the church make that name less beloved than the hearts of the
devout long for it to be. Besides this, when the heretics themselves are
thought to have the Christian name and the sacraments, the scriptures, and the
creed, they cause great grief in the hearts of the devout. This is because many
who wish to be Christian are forced to hesitate by their dissentions and many
slanderers find also among the heretics material for the defamation of the name
of Christian, because these heretics too are called, in a manner of speaking,
Christians. Owing to this kind of discreditable behaviour and this sort of
human error, those who want to lead a devout life in Christ suffer
persecutions, even though they endure no physical violence or bodily torment.
For they suffer these persecutions not in their bodies but in their hearts.
Hence the Psalmist says, ‘According to the multitude of sorrows in my
heart’—not ‘in my body’ ” (Ibid).
The original Latin reads:
“Nam et id, quod ait idem doctor: Quicumque
volunt in Christo pie vivere, persecutionem patiuntur , nullis putandum
est deesse posse temporibus. Quia et cum ab eis, qui foris sunt, non
saevientibus videtur esse tranquillitas et re vera est plurimumque
consolationis affert, maxime infirmis: non tamen desunt, immo multi sunt intus,
qui corda pie viventium suis perditis moribus cruciant; quoniam per eos
blasphematur christianum et catholicum nomen ; quod quanto est carius eis,
qui volunt pie vivere in Christo, tanto magis dolent, quod per malos intus
positos fit, ut minus, quam piorum mentes desiderant, diligatur. Ipsi quoque
haeretici, cum cogitantur habere nomen et sacramenta christiana et Scripturas
et professionem, magnum dolorem faciunt in cordibus piorum; quia et multi
volentes esse Christiani propter eorum dissensiones haesitare coguntur et multi
maledici etiam in his inveniunt materiam blasphemandi Christianum nomen, quia
et ipsi quoquo modo christiani appellantur. His atque huiusmodi pravis moribus
et erroribus hominum persecutionem patiuntur, qui volunt in Christo pie vivere,
etiam nullo infestante neque vexante corpus illorum. Patiuntur quippe hanc
persecutionem non in corporibus, sed in cordibus. Unde illa vox est: Secundum
multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo. Non enim ait: In corpore meo.”
Again, St. Augustine writes:
“The body of our head is the church, not the
church which is in this particular place or that, but the church which extends
through the entire circuit of the earth. Nor is it a church limited to this
time or that time, but it is a church which reaches from Abel through the
course of all the centuries to those who are going to be born and who believe
in Christ at the end of the world; it is the entire people of the saints who
form one city: this city is the body of Christ, and Christ Himself is its head.
There are to be found the angels, who are our fellow citizens; but because we
are on our way of labouring in our pilgrimage while they are already in the
eternal city awaiting our advent: for this reason, letters have been sent to us
from that heavenly city to accompany our pilgrimage: these letters are the
scriptures, which exhorts us to the good life. What do I say, that letters have
been sent to us? There is still more: the King Himself has descended and has
been made for us our way in our pilgrimage, so that walking in Him, we may
neither lose our way nor fall by the wayside. Such then is the whole Christ
whom we know, whole and entire together with the church, He however who is our
head alone having been born of the virgin, the Head of the church, the Mediator
between God and men, Christ Jesus our Lord…” (Enarr in ps., 90, Serm., 2, 1; P.L. 37, 1159--quoted by Eugene Kevane in Augustine the Educator, pp 236-237).
The very term catholic is from the Greek καθολικός (catholikos), which simply
means general or universal. The term was used by ecclesiastical writers since
the second century to distinguish the Church at large from local communities or
heretical and schismatic sects. The Church is called Catholic on the fourfold
ground of its worldwide extension, its doctrinal completeness, its adaptation
to the needs of men of every kind, and its moral and spiritual perfection. And
why does the Church have these qualities? It is simply because She is
divine, because She is “Corpus Christi”—the Body of Christ. “The body of
our head is the Church”, Augustine writes, “not the Church which is in this
particular place or that, but the Church which extends through the entire
circuit of the earth...” In other words the Church is by far more than the
buildings and the number of Catholics we see physically on this earth. She
actually exists all over the world, and beyond that. Catholic religion is a
religion revealed by God.
To deny the catholicity of the Church—as V 2 popes have done—is to
subtly deny that Christ is God—who is everywhere—since the Church is the Body
of Christ, a Body which is not confined to this one place, but which is
both in this place and in every place throughout the world. Emphasising on the
catholic nature of the church, late Jesuit priest, Father John Hardon, writes:
“...catholicity also means unity amidst
diversity, on several counts. The Church has never been a respecter of persons.
Poor and rich alike, the learned and the unlearned are equally welcome. All
cultures and every stratum of the society belongs to the Church, and where this
is not verified, the fault lies with those who have failed to combine “both the
universality of the Church and the diversity of the world’s nations in their
preaching of the gospel.” (The
Catholic Catechism, London: Geoffrey Chapman, n. d, p. 218).
The world does not reject the Gospel because it has not been adequately
explained. They reject it “because the light is come into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil” (John
3:19). Vatican II popes have chosen to explain the “Church’s teachings” in
terms of humanist phenomenology rather than having recourse to the Church's
traditional pedagogy. By focusing so much on the explanation and presentation
over the declaration, these heretical popes have unwittingly given the false
impression that the validity of the Church’s teachings are bound up with the
force of her argumentation—indeed, a sort of false intellectualism. “The Church”
now feels shaky and inadequate simply saying, "Such is the voice of the
Church; such is the teaching of our Faith"; “She” feels “she” must offer a
humanistic-centred explanation for everything—an explanation that will “suit”
the needs of “contemporary man”—with the effect that “her” message has become
completely man-centred. “He taught as one who had authority”, says the
Gospel according to St. Mathew (Matt. 7:29), but these heretical popes simply
discard the supernatural force that stands behind the Church’s teaching and
opts instead for an anthropomorphized message. For them, the Church no longer
“speaks with authority” because—as John Paul II puts it—She “has no monopoly of
truth”. The result is that “the Church’s” words lose their force. “Encyclicals”
lose their strength as teaching documents and become instead opportunities for
the heretical popes to foist their own theological or literary tastes on the
Catholic people. The phenomenology of John Paul II, the
Balthasarian-Hegelian-Teilhardism of Benedict XVI, and now the abominable
“literary theology” of Francis 1! Each of them has opted not to use traditional
pedagogy, which means every “pope” has to “try something new” in how they
choose to teach! Hence people shrug at the latest “papal” document—a rambling,
sprawling mess that lacks the force to move minds and hearts—and move on,
exactly what the unholy Bergoglio wants!
In paragraph number 63 Francis 1 writes: “Respect must also be
shown for the various cultural riches of different peoples, their art and poetry, their
interior life and spirituality. If we are truly concerned to develop an ecology
capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it.”
Here, again, Francis 1 speaks of the so-called “riches” and “wisdom” in
non-Catholic “spirituality” and “religion”. He is clearly an apostate.
 |
| Pope Pius XI |
Now it should be noted that the “respect” for falsehood and the inter-religious
dialogue which V2 heretics promote today was unanimously condemned by all the
popes before them, particularly popes who reigned after the French Revolution,
especially popes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who
reigned when the novel idea of ecumenism as a meeting of Catholics and heretics
was springing up. Pope Pius XI, who reigned in the early twentieth century,
condemned the evil ecumenism of Vatican 2 heretical popes in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
“…efforts are being made by some, in
connection with the New Law promulgated by Christ Our Lord. Assured that there
exist few men who are entirely devoid of the religious sense, they seem to
ground on this belief a hope that all nations, while differing indeed in
religious matters, may yet without great difficulty be brought to fraternal
agreement on certain points of doctrine which will form a common basis of the
spiritual life. With this object, congresses, meetings and addresses are
arranged, attended by a large concourse of hearers, where all without
distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as Christians, even those who
unhappily have rejected Christ and denied His divine nature or mission, are
invited to join in the discussion. Now such efforts can meet with no kind of
approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions
are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under
various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient
acknowledgement of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error;
they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually
into naturalism and atheism. To favour this opinion, therefore, and to
encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed
by God.”
In paragraph number 18 Francis 1 writes: “Although change is part
of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has
developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution.” Here
Francis 1 promotes the myth of evolution. He refers to “biological
evolution” as if it is true.
Global warming is one of the themes in the document. Concerning the idea
that the climate is getting warmer in general, Bergoglio writes:
“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are currently
witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this
warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would
appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically
determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity
is called to recognise the need for changes of lifestyle, production and
consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which
produce or aggravate it [LS 23].”
Thus Francis clearly endorses the scientific error that the planet is
warming due in large part to human activity. He ticks off a series of other
challenges such as a loss of biodiversity and threats to safe water, and
insists on a strong link between environmental problems and poverty. “Never
have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two
hundred years,” he writes, insisting that humanity can no longer afford “delaying
the important decisions and pretending that nothing will happen.” Francis
1 points to scientific studies—not religious sources—to back up the views he is
proposing.
Although the “encyclical” appears
to focus on climate change and environmental degradation, the larger focus is
his indictment of capitalism and the presumed greed that it spawns, leading
Francis 1 to call for a global government solution. In fact, as someone rightly
observed, “the language in the encyclical looks like it came from the UN’s
Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth.”
Francis 1 is especially harsh in
his criticism of capitalism as if it is the cause of greed, selfishness, and a
lack of concern for our fellow man. That type of criticism is directly from the
Socialism philosophy that holds that property be held in common and economic
relationships be governed by political hierarchy. History, however, has
demonstrated that Socialism, while intellectually appealing, fails in the real
world. The tone and direction of Bergoglio’s condemnation suggests that he is
enthralled by the writings of Thomas Malthus, and the doomsayer Paul Ehrlich
who has been consistently wrong in his predictions and prescriptions for saving
the planet.
Francis 1 calls for “a new global
political authority tasked with “tackling … the reduction of pollution and the
development of poor countries and regions.” And according to the Guardian, he
seeks “changes in lifestyles and energy consumption to avert unprecedented
destruction of the ecosystem before the end of the century”. This is the
language of Greenpeace and Earth First who are extreme by any definition.
The call for global governance is
reminiscent of President Jacques Chirac’s 2000 statement that “For the first
time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument (the Kyoto Treaty) of global
governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental
Organisation which France and European Union would like to see established.”
This is purely Satanic. As one keen observer puts it, “The notion that the
world should be run by an organization modelled after the UN or the European
Commission and European Union is chilling and ought to lead to the prompt
dismissal of the Pope’s philosophy...”
At this point, it is interesting to note that one of the main
individuals chosen by Francis 1 to present his new “encyclical” on the
environment was the atheist Hans Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber has said that the
world is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people. He is a promoter of
world government and an earth constitution that would hold power over every
government and nation. Indeed, my piece, “Can Catholics Participate in Modern Democratic Politics?” may
help us to see more clearly what this man is actually doing here.
But Bergoglio does not just stop there. His analysis of environmental
problems takes up only 28 out of the encyclical’s 184 pages. The overwhelming
majority of “Laudato Si'” is, perhaps
unsurprisingly, about theology. And while this material has been glossed over
by the mainstream press, it is nothing less than a seismic shift in mainstream
“Christian” thought about the human-nature relationship.
First, Francis reads scriptural passages in ways that, while not new,
have thus far been confined to liberal theology. In Chapter 2, he writes:
“The creation accounts in the book of Genesis contain, in their own
symbolic and narrative language, profound teachings about human existence and
its historical reality. They suggest that human life is grounded in three
fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour
and with the earth itself.”
Note the radically anti-fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic (“symbolic
and narrative language”) and the equation of the relationship between humans
and the earth with the relationships between humans and one another and between
humans and God. This is outrageous! This is not merely a statement that
environmental issues are important. This is a radical theological claim, that
human life is centrally defined by the human-earth relationship. Francis
teaches that how we relate to the earth is as important as how we relate to
God!
When liberal religious environmentalists make such claims, they are
accused of being “pagan.” But Francis is just getting started. In Chapter 3, he
reads Genesis’ “controversial” injunction that humans should have dominion over
the earth in precisely the terms of liberal religious environmentalism: “Our
‘dominion’ over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of
responsible stewardship”.
The language of “stewardship” is familiar to liberal theologians—but
coming in a “papal encyclical”, it is stunning. Indeed, it may be read as a
response to a half-century-old argument, most famously made by the historian
Lynn White, that the biblical relationship of “dominion” is partly to blame for
the environmental crisis. Francis is giving a direct refutation of the
anthropocentric view that the earth exists only as resources for humans to use.
He is directly refuting God Himself who said: “Let us make man to our
image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and
the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping
creature that moveth upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:26). Again, Francis is
refuting God Himself who said to man after creating him: “Increase and
multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the
sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the
earth.” (Gen. 1:28).
In another passage Francis 1 writes: “The Bible has no place for a
tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures.”
Again, he writes:
“Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly
interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that
our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies
absolute domination over other creatures. The biblical texts are to be read in
their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us
to ’till and keep’ the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). ‘Tilling’ refers to
cultivating, ploughing or working, while ‘keeping’ means caring, protecting,
overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility
between human beings and nature.”
Here, Francis explicitly states that “exploitative” readings of Genesis
have “incorrectly interpreted” it. Nature is not purely an instrumental good;
rather, humans are in a “relationship of mutual responsibility” with it.
What this means is spelled out in the following chapters. Francis
devotes almost half the encyclical to a radical critique of the “dominant
technocratic paradigm” and to proposing an “integral ecology” that brings
together human, social, cultural, environmental, and economic concerns. Once
again, such language would not be surprising coming from a student at a
progressive Protestant seminary—but from the “bishop of Rome”, it is indeed
stunning!
Then, at the end, “Pope” Francis’ overall spiritual attitude toward
nature is perhaps the most radical part of the whole “encyclical.” He begins
with his “namesake”, St. Francis of Assisi, who found spiritual communion not
only in cathedrals, but also in forests. And in the end, he comes back to
mysticism again, writing:
“The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a
mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a
poor person’s face. The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the
interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in
all things.”
Mystical nature pantheism in a “papal” encyclical! And with a nod to
liberation theology! And with a footnote to the Sufi mystic Ali al-Khawas, no
less! In his footnote (159) Francis 1 writes:
“The spiritual writer Ali al-Khawas stresses from his own experience the
need not to put too much distance between the creatures of the world and the
interior experience of God. As he puts it: “Prejudice should not have us
criticize those who seek ecstasy in music or poetry. There is a subtle mystery
in each of the movements and sounds of this world. The initiate will capture
what is being said when the wind blows, the trees sway, water flows, flies
buzz, doors creak, birds sing, or in the sound of strings or flutes, the sighs
of the sick, the groans of the afflicted...”
Ali-al-Khawas was a ninth century mystical Muslim poet. Here Francis 1
credits him for the concept of nature’s “mystical meaning,” noting how the poet
stressed “the need not to put too much distance between the creatures of the
world and the interior experience of God.”
Lastly, we see an intriguing detail to Laudato Si’ that has largely escaped the notice of many. It
also comes in the footnotes, which in a papal text typically are almost
entirely devoted to citations of other popes and official documents such as the
Bible or the Church’s catechism. This time around, however, more than 10
percent of the footnotes—21 out of 172, to be precise—contain citations of
documents from bishops’ conferences around the world. Francis quotes bishops
from 15 nations, including South Africa, the Philippines, Bolivia, Germany, the
Dominican Republic, Brazil, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, not to mention
both the United States and his own native Argentina.
Francis also cites two regional bodies of bishops – the Latin American
Episcopal Conference (CELAM) and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences
(FABC) – both of which represent regions of the world where the perceived
consequences of “global warming” and “climate change” are most keenly felt.
“Whatever impact “Laudato Si' ”
has in the political world remains to be seen”, writes Jay Michaelson, a
columnist for The Daily Beast who has taught environmental ethics at
Boston University Law School and other institutions. “But that the pope is here
embracing a nature-based mysticism, a highly adumbrated anthropocentrism, and a
radical “integral ecology” places the encyclical alongside the best of radical,
progressive religious environmentalism— and far outside what even mainline
Protestant denominations have affirmed heretofore…”
Many have praised Bergoglio’s evil document to the highest heavens
simply because—they say—Laudato Si’ contains
many elements of “Catholic teaching.” And what actually is this Catholic
teaching? Because it says something against abortion! As one
character who claims to be a Catholic teacher puts it, “Because this
document involves more of a mix of the religious and the scientific than most
Church documents, believers may need to think more carefully than usual about
which propositions belong to which category, but one cannot simply dismiss what
the pope says on matters of Church teaching. Indeed, believers should not adopt
a hostile attitude toward this document. Even if they hold different views on
some of the scientific matters the pope touches on, they should seek to find as
much as possible in the document that is good and useful.”
Quite a wonderful instruction! How so many Catholics the world over have
lost the faith without even realising it!
Our Lady of La Sallette prophesied in the nineteenth century: “Rome
will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. …The Church will be
eclipsed, the world will be in consternation.” We are witnessing
this prophecy now, but unfortunately, many—in fact millions—are not
aware of what is happening.
Hopefully, Our Lady also said: “But there are Enoch and Elias, they
will preach with the power of God, and men of good will will believe in God,
and many souls will be comforted; they will make great progress by virtue of
the Holy Ghost and will condemn the diabolical errors of the Antichrist.”
