The following comes from a June 18 Catholic News Agency article by Elise Harris:
In his new encyclical on the environment, Pope Francis slams attacks against human life such as abortion, embryonic experimentation and population control – saying that respect for creation and human dignity go hand in hand.
The Pope explained that “a sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings.”
“At times we see an obsession with denying any pre-eminence to the human person; more zeal is shown in protecting other species than in defending the dignity which all human beings share in equal measure,” he said.
The Pope’s encyclical “Laudato Si,” meaning “Praise be to You,” was published Thursday, June 18. Its name is taken from St. Francis of Assisi’s medieval Italian prayer “Canticle of the Sun,” which praises God through elements of creation like Brother Sun, Sister Moon, and “our sister Mother Earth.”
In early 2014, the Vatican announced the Pope’s plans to write on the theme of “human ecology” – a phrase that was previously used by retired pontiff Benedict XVI.
While the 184-page encyclical wades into controversial topics such as climate change, it also aggressively argues that it is not possible to effectively care for the environment without first working to defend human life.
It is “clearly inconsistent” to combat the trafficking of endangered species while remaining indifferent toward the trafficking of persons, to the poor and to the decision of many “to destroy another human being deemed unwanted,” the Pope stated.
To have this attitude, he said, “compromises the very meaning of our struggle for the sake of the environment.”
Francis also highlighted that concern for the protection of nature is “incompatible with the justification of abortion.”
“How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?” he asked.
Once the ability to welcome a new life is lost on the part of individuals and society, other forms of acceptance also “wither away,” he said, warning against a “culture of relativism” that sees an absence of any objective truth outside of our own immediate wants and needs.
The Pope also addressed the highly-debated topic of population control, a proposed solution to problems stemming from poverty and maintaining a sustainable consumption of the earth’s resources.
“Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate,” Francis lamented.
He denounced the fact that developing countries often receive pressure from international organizations who make economic assistance “contingent on certain policies of ‘reproductive health.’”
Even though an unequal distribution of population and available resources presents obstacles to development and environmental sustainability, “it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development,” he stressed.
To blame a growing population for these problems rather than the “extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”
Such scapegoating “is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption,” the Pope said, calling for an end to food waste.
Francis also rejected some ecological movements’ discontinuity in calling for limitations to be placed on environmental scientific research, while at the same time failing to apply the same principals to human life.
Accepting and caring for our bodies in their truest nature is essential for human ecology, he said, and stressed that this acceptance includes “valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity.”
An attitude which seeks “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it” is unhealthy, he said.
okay… another day at the “greatest show on earth” REALITY
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1811-on-the-pope-s-encyclical-laudato-si-talk-to-the-animals-after-all-you-re-one-of-them
1 Communion 2 charity, confession, prayer, fasting (according to your state and health) 3 repeat
4TH! PRAY FOR ME
Yes, I have read through the 180+ pages, 246 paragraphs of Laudato
Si.
This far-overly optimistic “analysis” (by Cath News Agency, Elise Harris) of Laudato Si re. PF’s criticizing abortion— is laughable. It is buried far back in n. 120 (out of 246 paragraphs), the overwhelming majority of LS (#13-64, #101-217, 167 paragraphs or 2/3rds of the “encyclical”) is entirely secular, Rio-Summit-’92 and Rio +20-praising future-world ideology.
And also this: Francis of Assisi generally gets more focus than Jesus Christ (Who doesn’t “appear” in the “encyclical” until n. 82.
Most of Laudato Si (#13-64, 101-217) is virtually entirely a secular piece the point of which is “ecological spirituality” (#202: which doesn’t mention Christ by the way: read it), and actually is quite pessimistic, warning that “doomsday predictions” (#161) are no longer to be doubted, and that we are leaving to future generations “debris, desolation and filth.”
It also pessimistically contrasts “sustainable development” vs. “insatiable and irresponsible growth” as those these were the only choices (#193). Capitalism is again blamed: LS complains that “businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved” of ecological damage (194). It is interesting how the “enemies” are being targeted…
Here is another important fact to consider: When PF and his ghostwriters and Laudato Si ring out their paean to Francis of Assisi (“Canticle of the Sun”, or Laudes Creaturum), they omit the telling summary of the hymn:
Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Bodily Death,
from whose embrace no living person can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin!
Happy those she finds doing Your most holy will.
The second death can do no harm to them.
Why would they not want to mention the fact of a summary judgment before Christ Jesus Our Lord. Hmmm?
The Pope’s Ghost writer is the Holy Spirit.
Read it as if God was saying it and be grateful that He has given us warnings and more time. (Again.)
Praise be Jesus Christ.
Do you take Humane Vitae this seriously ?
Laudato si – magistra no
https://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/laudato-si-magistra-no
The right wing prove just how “conservative” they really are – they don’t want to conserve anything. Where are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon and other Republican CONSERVationists when you need them?
Another person who hasn’t read the document. And doesn’t care to. It is the Cause that matters.
The fact is, you really cant connect Christ and the Gospel with the entirely secular atheist dram of global climate change and consequent global super-dictatorship. Laudato Si, shows that with well over 2/3rds of its torrential verbiage based on the Rio Summits of 1992 and 2012, the’72 Stockholm Declaration, and the Basel Convention [of World Super-Elites]. None of the previous popes have endorsed the population-control, forced birth- and abortion- control agenda of these extreme green atheists.
By the way, for the first time in an “encyclical”, these radical-driven conventions are mentioned explicitly as foundational sourcing for the mis-anthropic goals of world population control. Cf. 167ff and following.
Liberal don’t go away mad just go away
@Vita La Fond. Trouble is the lamestream media will simply ignore the parts they don’t like (condemnation of abortion, gender identity, population control etc) and harp on the Pope’s assertions that global warming is real and man made, thereby co-opting the Church for their dubious undertaking.
The real focus latent in LS is class warfare: this time between the generations: cf. par. 159, “La Giustizia Tra (between) le Generazioni”: Greedy people are being unjust to younger generations by their very existence and use and development of land & resources. And we all know what such injustice means: cf. n. 157: that violence will, and should, result. So, the logical conclusion: Revolution, destruction of “unjust structures”; where necessary, force, to achieve ends, and of course the seizing of assets and their re-distribution. Ahh, the bitter fruits of Sanchez-Sorondo & Gustavo Gutierrez are soon to ripen.
It is not unjust that a 6 year old has to keep his marbles away from his two year old brother so that he does not choke on them.
It is not unjust to avoid using pesticides or LSD or alcohol during a pregnancy so that your child does not have to suffer the consequences.
I would say this encyclical is the most secular ever written. It places the hope of mankind in mankind himself, much like Paul VI placed the hope of peace in the United Nations, rather than the Prince of Peace. The name of Our Lord Jesus is rarely invoked in this encyclical.
And this is quite concerning; Paragraph 175 of Laudato Si. What “world authority” is the Pope advocating overseeing the environment?
“…. to bringabout integral and timely disarmament, food security
and peace; to guarantee the protection of
the environment and to regulate migration: for
all this, there is urgent need of a true world political
authority, as my predecessor Blessed John
XXIII indicated some years ago”
Clinton, you are very correct in observing the secular humanism of this “encyclical”, which doesn’t mention Jesus Christ at all until par. n. 82, 1/3rd of the way into it; Fully two thirds of it (nn. 13-64 & 101-217) are almost entirely secular-atheist global ecobabble, with the barest of passing references to an apparently absent God who has vacated the earth. Jesus Christ has one small section in LS: nn.96-100, lip-service to the very person and purpose for which the Catholic Church exists. And worst of all, its pessimistic tone adopts the concept of Rio 2012, what LS calls a “grave and irreversible menace” to existence as though it is incontrovertible fact.
And what exactly is “Ecological Conversion”? (cf. LS n. 217) How did we miss this Gospel element for the past 2000 years in the life of Christ?
How does this not come perilously close to Paul’s admonition in Gal 1:7-8 against anyone preaching another Gospel other than the one Paul preaches? (7. “..Only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the Gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you…”)
Clinton, you have made good points. I agree with them. I do part company with those (not including you) who suggest that despoliation of the earth does not present a moral question. As such, it is a topic on which the Pope may properly express his views to the Church. But to the extent that the Pope bases his conclusions on scientific evidence which is controverted, they are due no more deference than that evidence is worth. In times past, the Church has embarrassed itself by binding Catholics in faith to believe matters which were later proved to be patently false all along. No need to repeat that exercise. As to one world government, no serious person could consider the UN fit for that role. It is an organization which routinely…
appoints as overseers of “human rights” member states which kill, torture and falsely imprison their citizens and deprive them of the most basic human rights. Not to mention (tho it SHOULD be) its self-admitted corruption at highest levels.
Good comments caritas and Clinton. I appreciate your food for thought. It does give me concern and keep praying for our Pope and all in charge.
Jorge Bergoglio is the product of a country that has had a totally dysfunctional political system for at least 80 years. His beliefs echo that system. The result is a Pope who is anti-capitalist and, in my opinion, anti American.
Having lived under Popes from Pius XII to Francis, this is the first time in my life that I have lost respect for the papacy.
Even the Pope can’t talk or teach about being good stewards of the earth without the “brithers” getting into a twist. I admit that I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but a quick review of the Theology of stewardship, referencing Genesis a lot, highlights the idea that we are guests on this earth, and we need to leave it better than we found it. Why is that such a difficult concept?
Why Bob One, I will tell you because Bergoglio has thrown his lot in with population control advocates such as Jeffery Sachs and the vile creatures at the UN. Answer me this Bob One our Brethren in the middle east are being decimated, and Bergogolio feels the need to write about the weather. I know to tolerant liberal like you this is all irrelevant, it does not fit your template of the world being destroyed by evil white men and their oil companies.
“Bob One”: Again, you bring the Zombie-Liberal point of view, insulting all who criticize the Pope (“?birthers?”) here. In fact, although more study is necessary, “Laudato Si” is, at best, an embarrassment to the Church. It shows that Francis is unabashedly a Latin American Marxist, anti-capitalistic, anti-personal freedom, pro-state control, pro-collectivist, and, likely, anti-Catholic Church (prior to Vatican II). He is an intelligent man, so no, he cannot be seen as a gullible, nice-guy who got lied to by a bunch of evil men (so suggests Michael Voris, among others).
Mankind is more than a Dr. Doolittle, sharing a common end point with animals. See Para. 83, for example. Much more to be said on this, but you simply have to…
(Cont’d) “become more thoughtful in your commentary, “Bob One” and try to bring some substance to the discussion. For example, how many times does Francis even state the word “Jesus”? Also, what are the driving forces here? As the Church is wracked with confronting a rebellious clergy that will not assent to its teachings on sexual ethics and morality — just look at the flaccid responses in Ireland and in NY State to homosexual marriage — what is to be done?
Clearly a Papal Letter on the environment is distracting from what is truly at issue. And, the forces driving the “global warming” debate worldwide are dark ones, focusing on population control and abortion. Take a broader look.
I haven’t read it but just looked at this summary. If this is accurate it puts unborn children in the same category as animal pelts from endangered species. Fr. Z. called it a “recyclical” in his blog. Is that the best thing to do with it before I spend time reading it ?
A guide to Laudato Si – Independent Catholic News
“Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism” (116): human beings no long recognize their right place with respect to the world and take on a self-centred position, focused exclusively on themselves and on their own power. This results in a “use and throw away” logic that justifies every type of waste, environmental or human, that treats both the other and nature as simple objects and leads…
Thank you “Pro-Life” for pointing this out. In fact, Laudato Si is factually wrong, and dated, on the issue of re-use. Current waste management is all about re-use, including (at least in CA) the future consumption of treated wastewater.
But, this is not the reason for this piece of crap, is it Holy Father? It represents nothing more than a Latin American attack on capitalism and personal freedom; a sort of adoption of Che Guevara tactics to confront free markets (which is, by the way, the greatest force for personal freedom yet devised; but the Pope is not at all interested in personal freedom, is he?).
No Pro life it does not equate humans with animal pelts.
You should read it yourself.
I have not seen an accurate summary of it anywhere.
It is highly destructive to papal authority, with its carefully circumscribed jurisdiction, faith and morals (cf. Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I), to fall in with the secular-atheist world agenda and the UN crowd (UNEP laughably predicted in 2005 that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010). Your average uninformed, go-along Catholic assumes that “because the pope says so, it is so.” Really? To apply a moral imperative to climate science?
Yet satellite data for the past two decades, the most accurate data shows absolutely no effective temperature change at all. So, as in the Galileo controversy, can “the Magisterium” declare that the earth does not move and that the earth is warming, as a matter of faith? Ha.
Galileo in his response to the Inquisition said it best:
“With regard to this matter and others which are not directly matters of faith, certainly none doubt that the Supreme Pontiff always has an absolute power to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power: of any created being to make things true or false, for this belongs to their own nature.”
PF would have been wise to follow Galileo’s counsel: but that wouldn’t make him the darling of the world, whose admiring attention to which he has become so attached.
By the way: Thursday, at the papal press conference, mathematician/theoretical physicist, now climate-expert to the Pope (I thought these people had to be “climate scientists” to be credible?), atheist, pro-abort, world-population-controllist, Hans Joachim “John” Schellnhuber also made another amazing, utterly fabulous prediction: that the melting of Antarctica’s ice caps would “raise the ocean 50 meters (about 150+ feet)” worldwide, due to carbon-dioxide emissions and consequent global-warming. But this is to be expected from God-is-absent-type atheists advising the Pope.
Guess what: this time he was careful to say it wouldn’t happen til 2500 AD (or he probably says BCE). Hard to check that, no? But the sky is falling,…
Yes, it is destructive of Papal authority. Francis’s ‘trust us, the world is getting warmer, and capitalism is causing it’ (without any evidence being presented) is unworthy of an authority such as that of the Papacy, and will undoubtedly cheapen it. There just is no way anyone can say with certainty that the globe is getting warmer, or that, if it is, it is any more than a normal fluctuation, or that there is anything humans can or should do about it. In addition there is the long chain of apocalyptic predictions made in our lifetime that have been proven wrong in our lifetime. Yes, Schellnhuber is wise to fix a date far into the future for his dire prophecies to materialize. And in addition to that there are the scams that have been…
discovered involving East Anglia among others.
In the early middle ages, the Papacy’s prestige was high, because of its perceived impartiality. It stood above the fray. Then, sadly, the Church descended into the arena, and became simply another player rather than the impartial authority she had been. She lost her prestige, though she gained a few short-term advantages. That is what will happen here. Francis will enjoy the accolades of the secular media – which, alas, he seems to relish – for a time, but the Church will suffer in the long run,
Just to further prove what a secular-atheist/humanist document this is: by the numbers:
* Christ is mentioned only 17x’s in mostly 8 note sections (nn 82-83, 96-100, and 216-217). S. Francis gets almost as many mentions (8x, about 8 paragraph sections–which must greatly humiliate him.
* By contrast, the words “ecology/ical, ecosystems, environment/al, biosphere”, since they are mostly interchangeable, I counted at well over 100x’s (109 in my count.) Nearly all of Laudato Jah (nn.14-64, nn.101-215) is pure Earth Charter (cf. 201) Rio ’92 atheism.
Again I note to everyone, that in this great moral imperative encyclical, this pope avoids whenever possible bearing the standard of Jesus Christ (mentioned 17x’s, virtually omitted other than nn. 96-100 and some summary comments (217-ff) out of 246 pages of secular-atheist future-dreaming.
Most notable is his omission of the summary message of St. Francis’ Canticle of the Sun of a final summary by the King of Kings:
” Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Bodily Death,
from whose embrace no living person can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin!
Happy those she finds doing Your most holy will.
The second death can do no harm to them.”
Wouldn’t you want this message to be preached to the nations….if you believed it? Instead he ends up LS (#243) affirming fait accompli that all will be saved:
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.