Deep in my memory I recall a kid, a really horrible obnoxious kid from my years at Catholic school during the disgraceful era of Pope Paul VI. He was never up to anything but trouble. I remember him whenever I come across this picture of young Pope Francis.
At this point, it would be obvious to any reasonable, normal, thinking person, regardless of his faith or lack of it, that the Catholic Church no longer really exists in a physical sense. Very few people understand that there is a living ‘Church Militant’, albeit now basically underground. They just see bishops, priests and men like Francis, an entirely thoughtless ass and a wrecker. They know that there were no men among our faithful to prevent him, and now our Church is as dead as the others.
Who in the world would want to join the Church of Francis now, a Church who’s very leader is a loud, lying hypocrite; a messianic propagandist for the monster state, a friend of ISIS? They’d have to be a very strange person indeed, or they’d have to be paid.
One of the worst things imaginable appears to be coming true.
The Catholic Church no longer really exists in a physical sense.
And the Pharisees are still getting paid by the click.
Note that the point is qualified by referencing the "underground church." And there is of course historical precedent for that. That doesn't make it alright.
Frank took his title from a post at Weasel Zippers, where "stop" wasn't the title but the entire text.
There's another word of equal length to denote just where Bergoglio can go.
Here's the text of the latest Pope Video (by the way, I'm not being snarky by calling it that--the official website for these is called "ThePopeVideo"). The actual video is at he end of the post:
Believers and unbelievers agree that the earth is our common heritage, the fruits of which should benefit everyone.
However, what is happening in the world we live in?
The relationship between poverty and the fragility of the planet requires another way of managing the economy and measuring progress, conceiving a new way of living.
Because we need a change that unites us all.
Free from the slavery of consumerism.
This month I make a special request:
That we may take good care of creation–a gift freely given–cultivating and protecting it for future generations.
Caring for our common home.
Let's put the most charitable and positive spin on this:
There are no heresies in this video.
There is bad science and economics (but we promised we would be charitable so we'll say no more).
Some of the people associated with The Pope Video project, such as Juan Della Torre and Cristina Miguens, seem to be sincere (if somewhat worldly) Catholics.
It's well-made and in places pretty.
It's short.
Okay, that's the charitable spin. Now let's make the most obvious criticism:
Aside from two ten-second sightings of a guy in a white cassock and the religiously loaded word "creation," there is absolutely nothing here that is Catholic, Christian or even particularly theistic.
Pope Francis is making an appeal for "change." Indeed, more than that, he wants "a change that unites us all." And, apparently, we need it.
Obviously he thinks this is possible. In other words, he believes there are people out there who will change their attitudes or behavior (in regards to the environment or politics or social responsibility or whatever) because of this effort. Indeed, not only does he think this is possible, his use of the word "unite" makes it appear that he thinks it's possible that everyone (or almost everyone) can change in this way.
But if people can change in this way, can't they also change in another way?
You know, they can change their. . . (I'm going to keep this down because we're in polite company here and I don't want to embarrass anyone). Well, you know, their. . . (I want to apologize in advance if this offends anyone). Okay, I'll just say it: can't people just, you know, can't people also change their. . .religion?
I did.
(And I don't change that easily.)
So did my wife. So did many of the (now) Catholics that I know. Many many more Catholics that I know (perhaps close to the majority) "changed" by coming back to the Church that they had once fallen away from.
It happens.
So, here's my recommendation for the March video. Who knows, I might even tweet it to Juan Della Torre.
Cue pictures of Jesus preaching, Jesus at the Last Supper, His crucifixion, Mary and the others at the foot of the cross; pictures of saints, nuns and priests; clips of beautiful churches, shrines, altars and religious art. There can even be mountains and trees.
The Pope then says:
Fellow human beings (or believers and unbelievers, or citizens of the world or whatever), I want to invite you to make a change, a change that will not only do you infinite good but has the potential to unite many of us here on earth.
If you are a Catholic, I want to invite you to refresh and renew your faith.
If you are not a Catholic, I want to invite you to become one. Jesus Christ was the greatest man who ever lived. He was also God. Honor Him by joining the church that He founded.
Come home, children.
At this point, if he wants to soften it a bit and add a touch of humor, he can say,
Hey, what do you expect? I'm the Pope. It's my job to ask.
Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Don't laugh. It's the only explanation I can come up with. Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth UK had the reputation for being one of the most stalwart defenders of Catholic orthodoxy in Britain. He spoke out against giving communion to dissident Catholic politicians, and was unafraid to strongly proclaim Catholic teachings on the current hot-button issues involving marriage and family. He urged caution for priests collaborating with groups holding or spreading non-Catholic or anti-Catholic views. He often referenced "carrying the cross", "the coming persecutions", faithful Catholics and Christians comprising a "remnant" and so on.
Mundabor gave him three cheers. He reintroduced and defended the Traditional Latin Mass. So what's he doing going full-blown Laudato Si on us? The full text of his Pastoral Message letter on the occasion of the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation is now available on the website of the Portsmouth Diocese. Yesterday we reprinted the Catholic Herald's description of the letter. If anything, the original is worse than we might have thought. Had Bishop Egan ever used the term "Mother Earth" before? Much of the letter is given over to a description of the recent encyclical Laudato Si with quotations of some of it's more famous (or infamous) passages. He then announces that he's placing the Diocese of Portsmouth on "Environmental Alert", which will impact "(1) the way we think, (2) the way we act, and (3) the way we pray." Regarding (1) among other things, he suggests "we heighten awareness (of environmental issues) through an occasional column in parish or school newsletters, through mentions in local media (and) through the parish Justice, Peace and Social Responsibility group." He also asks us to "consider engaging in an ecumenical effort with other Christians or with secular campaigns to bring about real change." Again, remember, this isn't your local hippy priest. It's Bishop Philip Egan. (2) quotes the encyclical on "avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse...planting trees" and the like. Yesterday we reported Egan had asked penitents to confess sins against the environment. The actual language in (3) is: "And in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we should examine our life-styles, seeking His mercy for any sins we may have committed against an integral ecology." It's true that Bishop Egan also recommends that we meditate on the first three chapters of Genesis, praise God for His Creation in Eucharistic Adoration and offer the Rosary. But when offering the Rosary to "overcome the ecological crisis" as the Bishop advises, be careful it doesn't burn up in your hands. I forgot to mention the most egregious recommendation. We should read and study Laudato Si carefully, "perhaps a few paragraphs a day". And Egan tells us it would be particularly appropriate to do this in a "parish Justice, Peace and Social Responsibility group." The letter is signed "+ Philip". Well, of course it is. You want to stay Catholic? Sure. But this is about staying human. Or if you don't like the pod metaphor, feel free to use another. Bishop Egan found a horse head in his bed, got a Malta phone call, was bitten by a member of the Zombie Church... Or maybe he's just tired. I know I am.
"I don't really believe any of this stuff, but Malta would be a drag."
This is a a secondary report from the UK's Catholic Herald (via PewSitter). I couldn't find the original letter online, though I assume it will at some point be available.
More than anything this makes me want to become more Christlike--by making a whip and charging into a Church office, ripping down eco-posters and overturning Laudato Si displays.
The Bishop of Portsmouth has placed his diocese on “environmental alert” as well as directing people to examine their lifestyles in confession, after reading Pope Francis’ encyclical.
Bishop Egan called Laudato Si one of the most “challenging” papal encyclicals of our time, adding it prompted him to look at how his diocese should respond.
In a pastoral letter Bishop Egan said the alert should impact the way the diocese, acts, pray and thinks “leading [it to a conversion of mind, will and heart.”
In his message Bishop Egan highlights ways in which the faithful can respond practically to the Holy Father’s encyclical.
He calls for every member of the diocese to “have a greater awareness of environmental and ecological issues” and to raise awareness amongst others through writing, ecumenical initiatives and evangelisation teams.
The bishop also calls on his diocese to moderate their own lifestyles.
“Everyone in the diocese should consider how they might respond in practice to the Pope’s call,” he said.
He also adds the ‘environmental alert’ should influence the way people pray by having it as a bidding prayer, Mass intention or focus of prayer groups and even impact people’s examination of conscience for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
The bishop ends his message by offering tips as to how people can implement the pope’s encyclical.
He suggests people pray the rosary, or meditate on Genesis chapters one to three, as well as advising praising God for creation in Eucharistic Adoration while “asking Him how [we] might become a better custodian of creation.”
Recently, Pope Francis has adopted "throwaway culture" as a sort of blanket term for everything that is bad. In a sense he has used it to replace that previous favorite of Christians and Catholics, "culture of death" (though, in fairness, Pope Francis had a few times used that term earlier). In some sense, this is not surprising. "Culture of death" had a sort of reactionary, "who am I not to judge" air about it. One could imagine it being used by activists running over their neighbor's dog in their glee to get to the abortion protest on time, where they would then be shaking their Rosaries and dead fetus photographs in the faces of traumatized young women who would have benefited more from a kind word. And "throwaway culture" gives a sort of earnest and respectable 1950's-ish tinge to the Pope's agenda. Not a tattooed hippy squatting in a treehouse, but a bow-tied sociology professor penning an essay for the New Yorker about how prefab houses were disrupting our sense of meaning. Franboys have been singing arias over the phrase. It's a clever attempt (so goes the aria) to convert the entire environmentalist movement to the anti-abortion side. It's a way to effectively brand the message of the new evangelization. And it sounds cooler than "seamless garment", which was getting a bit frayed anyway. On the other hand, those in the the growing opposition to Francis have been making predictable snarks about how "throwaway culture" is in large part simply the latest attempt to put an anti-capitalist, pro-environmentalist gloss on the teachings of the Church. (I'm part of that opposition, by the way, and most of my snarks are nothing if not predictable.) But I wanted to comment here on something that I have rarely seen remarked upon by those on any side: As used by the Pope, the term "throwaway culture" is incoherent. Consider the things that the Pope has branded as examples of it:
Not eating all the food on one's plate.
Industrial pollution
Man-made global warming.
Not recycling paper
Forced or coerced labor
The sexual exploitation of children
Ignoring or abandoning the elderly
Being a partisan of "invisible hand" economic theories
Slavery and human trafficking
Being a relativist or against objective truths
Wanting merely to satisfy our own desires or immediate needs
Organized crime
The drug trade
Commerce in blood diamonds
Trading in the fur of endangered species
Buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation
Abortion
Euthanasia
The desire to consume more than what is necessary
Poverty in general
I could of course easily make the list twice as long but I think you get the point. Now with a few glaring exceptions, such as 8, I think we would agree that most of the items on the above list are bad things. In turn, many of them are sins or are often or in part the consequences of sin, though of course their gravity varies greatly (compare 1 with 17). But I think it it is also obvious that many of the items above are different kinds of evils. They are in fact wildly different. They can be united as being symptoms of a "throwaway culture" only if the phrase is stretched to meaninglessness. Consider an abstract hypothetical example involving slavery. Assume that I am a greatly evil and selfish person. I do not care one atom about the interests or rights of other people. If it pleased me or served my interests to eliminate someone permanently, as it were, I would do so. But instead I choose to make a few other people my slaves (imagine that I am for some reason in a position to do so). I do this of course, not to benefit them, but to satisfy my own needs and desires (at a lower cost to me than if, say, I hired them as employees). It goes without saying that this would be gravely evil. But is it useful to look at it as an example of a throwaway culture or my throwaway attitude or whatever? I do not think so. After all, I am using people, not throwing them away. And I may even be said to be using them "efficiently" (in one sense of the term) in that my mansion is now going up faster than if I had paid a bunch of grumbling carpenters to do the job (they always work slowly and take too many coffee breaks anyway). Of course, if I'm even semi-intelligent, I'm probably not going to work my slaves to death on one project (because then I would have to buy more of them) but will treat them just well enough so that they will have a long and profitable (to me) life.
And don't say the evil here is due to profit per se. Imagine I am an anti-capitalist, socially responsible slave owner (it happens). I generally use my slaves not for my own personal gain but to improve the local infrastructure so that the poor don't suffer as much during downturns in the business cycle. Consider also that many of my slaves would otherwise (if they weren't slaves) be engaged in selfish and socially harmful pursuits--buying, selling and producing excessive amounts of silly consumer goods, for example. Of course, modern slavery is evil not because it involves throwing people away, but because it involves using people in ways that people, well, shouldn't be used--however desirable the end might be (to someone), whether it is satisfying selfish desires or meeting the perceived needs of the community. To proceed from the fanciful to the real and immediate. Consider the recent "sting" on Planned Parenthood. Pro-lifers feel that the grotesque actions revealed on hidden camera--buying and selling the "parts" of aborted children between munches of salad and sips of wine--will help in the battle against the current baby murder epidemic. But what has heightened our revulsion in this case, and hopefully the revulsion of those who up to now were sitting on the fence, is not throwing people out per se but rather, almost the reverse of that. Planned Parenthood and their bio-tech customers want to recycle babies, or at least their bodies. They choose to treat them as just another inanimate thing such as a paper cup or bit of plastic that we should get as much use out of as possible lest society lose a valuable resource. Intact stem cells are valuable, after all. There are diseases to be cured. Or to take an historical example, what of that ultimate 20th century manifestation of evil--the intentional and in the end mechanized extermination of millions of people by Nazi Germany? Was this an earlier case of throwaway culture? Before answering, note that here again, what adds the final note of horror are the stories (some very true, some not) of the desire on the part of the murderers to, so to speak get as much use out of their victims as possible. Lets' put the strong ones to work in the factory. But in the end, don't forget their hair and gold fillings. A man who described the Holocaust as a manifestation of the Nazi's environmental incorrectness or their excessively consumerist attitude or their short-term perspective or whatever, should rightly be labeled mad, or more accurately be branded a sociopath. He would seem be at the least implicitly thinking of people as mere things. Which in a sense, of course, is exactly what the Nazi's did.
Has the Pope described the Holocaust in those terms? Not to my knowledge. But why shouldn't he? He has described abortion in those terms. In the last fifty years, fifty-five million people have been exterminated in the United States alone, and as many as a billion throughout the world. See, the Pope has actually said: this is an example of our throwaway culture. For their part, the Nazis murdered perhaps six million Jews, as well as millions of additional Catholics, homosexuals and others. Of course, the Nazis were amateurs compared with Abortion Incorporated, but surely they had a little mini-throwaway culture thing going on there. Enough.
The Pope's blanket use of the term "throwaway culture" is not only incoherent but insidious. It mis-describes things in a harmful way. Moral virtue--at least when it pertain to our relations with other human beings--has nothing essentially to do with the the proper use or conservation of resources. Rather, it's primarily about treating people not as mere resources--to be used, recycled, conserved or whatever it is you want to do, perhaps even in the interests of society or the "greater good"--but as people. Conversely, moral evil is about mistreating people, not wasting them. Men and women were created in the image of God. Paper cups, plastic toys, the peas I don't want to eat on my plate, earthworms, trees, lions (even those) and a million other inanimate and animate-but-non-human things were not. Men and women have rights. Their value, our value--whether it directly benefits the earth, society or indeed anyone else--is, from the moral point of view, infinite. The last two sentences of the above are a truism, not only for good Christians and Catholics but for any civilized human being. Yes, many good atheists believe it, too. If a Catholic wants a word or phrase to cover everything that is bad, or at least everything that is bad from the point of view of human intention or human action there is obviously one already available. What is that word? Wait for it... Sin. By the way, in Laudato Si, the word "sin" is used only four times. That's one fewer than the five appearances of "throwaway culture". And three out of the four uses are in quotes by others. The only original use is in the context of linking sin with "wars, the various forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature." I want to cut down on sin too, but that's not exactly what I had in mind. Or if a Catholic wants a phrase that covers some of the worst sins of a particular sort, there is still "culture of death". "Throwaway culture" is a demagogic slogan. It's not used by the Pope to get secularists to oppose abortion. It's used by the Pope to get secularists to like the Pope. Is it also used to confuse Catholics, to mislead them or to sew doubts about their Faith? I think so.
QUITO, ECUADOR, July 6 (AP) – At an outdoor rally earlier today, Pope Francis put down his prepared address, turned ad orientem and suddenly sprinted into the surrounding jungle, leaving behind a crowd of stunned onlookers. Twelve hours later he had not returned and was presumed permanently lost in the vast Amazon rainforest. Swiss Guards Follow Members of the Pope's elite traveling Swiss guard were quickly handed machetes by local police and pursued the fleeing Pontiff, but after two hundred yards of frantic hacking could proceed no further through the dense natural growth. One mentioned catching a distant glimpse of the Pope's white cassock as it flitted further in. Possible Motives Only last week, Pope Francis had indicated that he didn't think the Papacy should be a permanent entitlement. In addition, close associates have mentioned the effect that months of advising and reviewing Laudato Si had on the environmentally conscious prelate. In that recently released encyclical, the value and worth of a pre-industrial situation, especially one involving trees, was emphasized again and again. Other witnesses reported that the Bishop of Rome had been intensively chewing coca leaves only a few hours before. Where's Papa? Souvenir hawkers were disappointed. "Where's Papa?" complained one, stuck with three-hundred wooden crosses with plastic Pope Francis heads glued onto the top. Another salesperson, manning a stand draped with "Who am I to judge?" t-shirts, said the Pope was a selfish bishop who had let them down. Those familiar with the nearby topography said it was impossible to estimate in what precise area of the forest the Pope might currently be. "It's like looking for a miniature aspergill in a haystack," said one natural scientist. When informed that the Pope was still probably wearing his cassock, he replied, "Okay, so it's like looking for a miniature white aspergill in a haystack. Same thing." Given the extreme biodiversity of the forest, there are no worries that the Pope will be without nourishment or even without a more than adequate menu of useful medicines and drugs for the indefinite future. Historical Precedent Though a handful of Popes have resigned voluntarily – including Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI – and a handful more have been deposed by force, there has been no reported incident of a Pope intentionally losing himself in a wooded area. The closest similarities are Linus V jumping into the Tiber to avoid debt collectors and Pope John Paul II secretly sneaking out on a full week's calendar of official meetings to go skiing in the Alps. Conservative Backlash Traditionalists jumped on the Papal action, branding what now is being called the Pope's "Amazon gambit" as embodying material if not formal heresy. Rumors are swirling that prior arrangements had been made to link up with a hitherto undiscovered tribe, which, according to anthropologists, worshiped helicopters. This was denied by a Vatican spokesman who claimed that members of the tribe in question were merely Pentecostalists. Uncharacteristically, Mark Shea was silent.
In Chicago, as Frank Sinatra pointed out, men dance with their wives. Sometimes that leads to other things. In the great movie Rob Roy, one of the Catholic Highlanders tells this joke at a celebration:
Q: Why are Calvinists against making love standing up?
A: It might lead to dancing.
Last night I danced with my wife. Is it always "procreation" or is it only procreation if you find out later that it was? In any case, I didn't think about it. Even once. I don't think she did either. I went to work without feeling guilty. As I remember, I bought a cup of coffee and a donut. Do not misunderstand. In other contexts, we often consider the general issue quite thoughtfully. In last night's context, we didn't. Is that responsible procreation? Of course, I'm thinking about this against the background of the recently released Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod (on the Family). One of the Agenda Items is "responsible procreation." I've read that in the early Medieval Church, sometimes it was thought necessary to confess if you had romantic feelings for, and acted on them with, your spouse. Unless of course you had no romantic feelings and were just doing your duty to populate the earth or whatever. Now (it seems) you have to confess if you only had romantic feelings and were not dutifully thinking of the effects of acting on those feelings on, say, future carbon emissions. We've come full circle, sort of. Okay, so I've always wanted to say this: Hands off my body. Hands off my wife's body. And hands off, well, you know. We'll procreate however we damn well want. Another item on the Synod agenda is "birth reduction." I know. I did a double-take on that one too. No doubt there will be more to say about it later. But for now, this will merely have to do: Hands off my (future) ten-seat van with the Pro-Life stickers... ...you nasty heretical freaks. By the way, I just learned that the label, "responsible procreation" has occasionally been used by defenders of "traditional marriage" against proponents of "gay marriage." With respect to my Christian brothers and sisters, I think that's bizarre. Within a Catholic context, that's like using the slogan, "responsible drinking" to defend bars. I know it depends on how you define the terms, but to me, life itself isn't even "responsible" per se. It isn't controllable. It isn't even manageable. It's beautiful. It's unpredictable. It's joyful. It's, yes, anarchic. And it's infinitely valuable, whatever some sour post-modernist bishop might say. And as I recall, some One once "saw that it was very good."
She has good friends, loves good coffee and theater. And she has felt that she wanted to die ever since childhood. Laura (24): “Life, that’s not for me.” This summer, euthanasia will end her life full of inner conflict, depression and self-destruction.
I met the West Flemish Laura at the presentation of the book ‘Libera me’ euthanasia for psychological reasons. Writer Lieve Thienpont is one of the psychiatrists who gave Laura a positive opinion for euthanasia.
Euthanasia for psychological reasons is done when a psychiatrist agrees that the psychological pain that a person is experiencing cannot be relieved in a way that the individual finds acceptable.
That means, Laura may be treatable, but Laura has decided that the only acceptable “treatment” is death.
In Belgium and the Netherlands they're turning their empty churches into skateboard parks. And doctors earn royalties by recommending the murder of their patients. While an evil cult grows in numbers and strength. And in a cynical and tired world, the 266th pope just spoke out for the rights of micro-organisms. Let's form a study group...for the blind. Some wonder (are they right?) whether all of it will soon be swept away. But amidst all of this, there is a woman. No one in particular, really. Troubled, like many of us. She is more important than any animal. Who will speak for Laura?
I was going to write a lengthy and reasoned piece on the encyclical, titled (provisionally) "20 Things Wrong With Laudato Si." And I was going to include the following theological topic as one of those twenty things. But then it became clear to me that it would be inappropriate and unseemly to include the Pope's apparent denial of the existence of hell on the same list as his misunderstanding of carbon credits or his ignorance of public choice theory or whatever. A few months ago, the Pope gave an interview where he allegedly denied the existence of hell in favor of annihilationism. This was dismissed (or ignored) by the usual suspects as unverified or hearsay, etc. However, a few days ago the Pope implicitly denied the existence of hell in a papal encyclical. Not only that, but he seemed to, this time, move beyond annihilationism to universalism. A few traditionalist commentators pointed this out (here and here, among other places), but on the main the issue has not been discussed by many. I find this odd. Or perhaps it's not. The Pope's un-Catholic theology is a bit like Bill Clinton's women problem. It's so obvious and so pervasive that most people eventually end up wanting to ignore it. It's old news. Move on. Yeah. But he's the Pope. It matters. Here are the relevant passages, not from some second-hand interview with Eugenio Scalfari, but from an actual, official, coat-of-arms-stamped papal encyclical:
83. The ultimate destiny of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been attained by the risen Christ, the measure of the maturity of all things [there follows a footnote to Tielhard de Chardin, whose teaching and books were proscribed by the Church]...all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things. Human beings, endowed with intelligence and love, and drawn by the fullness of Christ, are called to lead all creatures back to their Creator.
243. At the end, we will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God (cf. 1 Cor 13:12), and be able to read with admiration and happiness the mystery of the universe, which with us will share in unending plenitude. Even now we are journeying towards the sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards our common home in heaven. Jesus says: “I make all things new” (Rev 21:5). Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.
Does Francis deny hell in these passages? Not quite. It's still just possible to read, say, the second passage as consistent with the Thomist scheme of exitus reditus--all things come from God and all things shall return to him--though for Aquinas, all "returning" does not mean that all will be saved. So, to make it consistent according to the encyclical, all of us are moving or "journeying" towards God. All of us are called to lead the animals to Him. But then the referent shifts and "we" now only refers to some of us, as in some of us "will share in unending plenitude." Then the referent of "we" moves back to all of us as in "we (all of us) are journeying towards the sabbath of eternity, the new Jerusalem, towards our common home in heaven." It is our common home, though not all of us will get there. Thus, the referent now moves back to some of us. The passage doesn't explicitly say that all of us will experience eternal life. It merely says, "Eternal life will be a shared experience." Thus, we read it as some of us will experience eternal life. "Each creature"--not each creature, as in every creature that exists but each creature, as in every creature that is in fact saved--will be "resplendently transfigured, (and) will take its rightful place." "Those poor men and women" does not refer to all poor men and women, but only to some of us poor men and women--the poor men and women who in fact end up being saved. Of course that is not how anyone will read the passage. Rather, the implication is unmistakable. We're all (according to Laudato Si) going towards God and heaven--leading the animals. And yes, that means every animal--not only our terriers, but rats and gnats and micro-organisms, etc. And we're all going to get there. This is not Catholic teaching. And it is not Catholic teaching because it is not the teaching of Christ, from whom all Catholic teaching ultimately stems from, of course. Wherever the animals may be going (bless them), human beings are not all going to heaven. Some of us are going to hell. If all of us end up "face to face" with God, some of us will see His face for only a moment before we hear, "I do not know you," and we are cast down. Forever. I don't like it either but it's true. Or if we are Catholics, we believe it's true. Is the Pope Catholic? It's the Pope's job to get this message out. Not merely because it is true, but infinitely more importantly so that everyone is aware of it. Being aware if it is the first step to making sure that we each have the best chance of avoiding that most horrible of fates. If we aren't aware of it, there's a much greater chance we will go there. Or so says the Catholic Church. It's the Pope's job. It's his most important job. Sure a Pope can and should speak of other things. Pope Benedict XV tried to end World War I. That was laudable. Much more than laudable. But no Pope, NO pope, has, prior to Francis, denied the premises of the Christian theory of salvation. This Pope just did so. He did so only a few days ago. I'm not here concerned with whether or not that's heretical or whether or not he's a heretic. He's one man, and he's responsible for his actions. Though, even so we should pray for him (at the least). Rather, here I'm worried about those other 6,999,999,999 persons. Shouldn't I be? Shouldn't any Catholic be at long last? Doesn't the encyclical itself say that we should be? The Pope wants to save humanity from carbon emissions. He doesn't (according to his words) want to save it from hell. Of course, he wouldn't put it that way. Rather, he doesn't believe in hell. Or if he does, he doesn't want to tell anyone about it. The practical effect of that is the same. Pope to humanity: Go to hell.
From the article. There are also some other funny pictures and videos.
In Why I’m Disregarding Laudato Si and You Should Too, Chris Jackson of The Remnant just nails it. His article is comprehensive, true (unfortunately) and devastating. And it's original, which is obviously getting to be more and more difficult with this subject. It's also very very funny. I just lost it when he started talking about extinct sharks.
