The following comes from a June 12 Colorado Statesman article:
Last Thursday, Conservation Colorado honored Tom Steyer, the California investment billionaire and environmental political donor, at its 2015 ‘Rebel With A Cause’ dinner at the Convention Center Hyatt in Denver.
At the gala event — the state’s “green-side-up” glitterati were in full force — was former Gov. Bill Ritter, coiner of the “new energy economy” catch phrase that now echoes in nearly every discussion about global warming, and he had a story to tell. Or not quite tell yet, but with a wink and a grin, he confirmed what we’d been hearing for weeks.
The rumors have been flying fast and furious that the former governor had answered a summons from Pope Francis to assist in crafting the Catholic Church’s pending encyclical on climate change.
We couldn’t resist asking the Global Warming Guru if he had, indeed, been spending some time offering his expertise in Vatican City.
The afore-mentioned grin crossed Ritter’s face as he responded, ”No, but I did spend time in Rome meeting with the Vatican’s policy team drafting the Papal Encyclical.”
Ritter is presently directing the Center for the New Energy Economy at CSU. According to sources and our surmise, Ritter was the only American to serve on the climate change policy advisory team. A devout Catholic — he served as an African missionary with his wife, Jeannie, and weathered periodic attacks from several of the more virulent pro-choice factions within the Democratic Party — Ritter has emerged as a leading international voice in the climate debate.
An official at the U. S. Department of Energy with contacts in the White House hadn’t heard about Ritter’s involvement with the much-anticipated Vatican missive but was interested to hear the news. “No, we didn’t know, but I’m glad he was there!” was the reply from our Department of Energy source.
Ritter would not discuss the particulars of the encyclical, due out on June 18, but he did report, “You’ll be surprised. Pope Francis is not limiting its contents to a narrow discussion of climate change. He will also touch on economics and the equitable distribution of impacts on all of God’s children.”
Following hard on the heels of last week’s sermon, in which the Pope labeled ideological, right-wing Christian fundamentalism as “an illness” that doesn’t serve Jesus Christ, the conservative Catholics who have dominated the Church for the past half-century must be reaching for their blood pressure medicines. Infallibility and the role of the Pope in the Church as the Vicar of Christ were far more congenial concepts when the Vatican’s message was one of pampering the powerful.
As a member of the Democratic Party, Ritter supports a “semi-progressive” agenda, emphasizing universal health care, environmental protection, housing subsidy and welfare increases and other stances aligned with the left wing of the Democratic Party. During the first campaign, more progressive, state Democratic leaders encouraged other candidates, including Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, to pursue the Governorship, because of concerns over Ritter’s pro-life stance. Others believed that Ritter would win more votes in the “purple state”, as opposed to Republican opponents. Hickenlooper did not pursue the office in 2006 and he eventually supported Ritter. Ritter opposes same-sex marriage.
As Governor, Ritter pledged that overturning abortion laws would not be part of his agenda, and stated that he would veto any bill prohibiting abortion that did not provide for an exception for rape, incest, or fetal anomalies. Ritter further stated that he would restore state funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and would reverse the veto of a bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense the emergency contraception known as the morning-after pill. Ritter also staked out moderate positions on business and labor issues, vetoing legislation in 2007 that would have made it easier for workers to form unions, and, mid-term, naming moderate Republican Don Marostica his director of economic development.
With “pro-life” politicians like him, who needs pro-abort ones?
If the governor is concerned with the poor, he really needs to rethink his climate change views. Why? According to activists, it will take thousands of trillions of dollar worldwide to prevent an environmental catostrophy. And even then, it will likely be too late. But this money will put a significant drain on the economies of the world, especially the emerging economies and the poor.
However, California environmentalists don’t agree that man-made climate change is true. Or, if it is, that it won’t have serious effects on the environment. This is a case of watching what they do rather than what they say.
A case in point are the California rules that were developed for AB32 for power companies to mitigate the affects of…
According to a comment on the AngelQueen website by 747pilot:
Ritter could not run for a second term because of the many scandals in his administration. The main one was he was having an affair with his chief of staff. They gave him a no show job at Colorado State University just to get him out of the way.
He had no background in environmental sciences but he was such an embarrassment to the Democrats, they wanted him gone.
How can you call Ritter “pro-life” when he is pro-abortion? The very article you reproduce says this: “As Governor, Ritter pledged that overturning abortion laws would not be part of his agenda, and stated that he would veto any bill prohibiting abortion that did not provide for an exception for rape, incest, or fetal anomalies. Ritter further stated that he would restore state funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and would reverse the veto of a bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense the emergency contraception known as the morning-after pill.”
Ooops, I shot from the hip, so excuse me. Thank you for providing the material from wikipedia that shows Ritter’s pro-abortion history.
“Following hard on the heels of last week’s sermon, in which the Pope labeled ideological, right-wing Christian fundamentalism as “an illness” that doesn’t serve Jesus Christ, the conservative Catholics who have dominated the Church for the past half-century must be reaching for their blood pressure medicines.” My blood pressure is just fine, thank you.
That half-century includes 14 years of the disastrous Paul VI pontificate.
” 49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change ”
These are not climate scientists. They are retired administrators and astronauts. All of the recognizable names were respected in 1975, but not in 2015. And the letter opens with the proposterous notion that NASA should avoid making “unproven” remarks on its website. Well, that’s preposterous. If NASA were prohibited from making “unproven remarks”, some of these men would have died in ugly fireballs on their space missions 40 years ago.
Given some of the integrity issues that have surrounded climate change and the scientific community in the past, quoting scientists can not be taken as an absolute. Also, of the few meteorologists that I’ve known, all but one have serious misgivings about the effects of man-made climate change. Lastly, there is fierce debate even among California’s environmental activities over the truth of climate change. In regard to this last point, please refer to my comment regarding the rules that were developed for AB32. (Due to length, both were truncated but one is more concise and has more information.)
” GLOBAL WARMING UNMASKED ”
Voris claims “over 500 hours of research” in making this episode. 500 hours of research, or 500 hours of pursuing an agenda? What does he think good research is? Where is the peer review and the proper citations? After criticizing someone for having a Ph.D in economics, Michael Voris then cites John Coleman, “founder of the Weather Channel” as an authority. The silly-old retired San Diego weatherman who only has a bachelors degree in journalism. Yeah, he’s a real authority all right! https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/11/03/why-does-anyone-pay-attention-to-john-coleman-weather-channel-co-founder-on-climate-change/
There is no such thing as a pro-life DEMOCRAT (including those who support the murder of innocents under some circumstances).
Review the GOALS of the Democratic Party. They are contained in the National Democratic Party Platform, and in the 2014 California Democratic Party Platform.
“…… grin crossed Ritter’s face as he responded, ”No, but I did spend time in Rome meeting with the Vatican’s policy team drafting the Papal Encyclical.” “
It is accurate that those who support killing an unhealthy innocent human being through abortion – is NOT pro-life.
Those who support killing an innocent human being through abortion for the convenience of others – is NOT pro-life.
“You’ll be surprised. Pope Francis is not limiting its contents to a narrow discussion of climate change. He will also touch on economics and the equitable distribution of impacts on all of God’s children.” – What does this mean ?
God’s Commandments: “Thou shall not Steal. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”
CCC: # 1885, 1883, 2209, 2411, 2454.
The Doctrine of the Faith opposes all forms of Collectivism, communism, & marxism.
Exactly. The 7th and 10th Commandments. Keep your mind and hands off other people’s stuff. It’s certainly unjust to gang up on your neighbor to steal his property. Using the vote and enlisting the force of government to do the same thing is ever bit as immoral, and probably worse.
If the governor is concerned with the poor, he needs to rethink his climate change views. Why? It’ll take thousands of trillions of dollar to prevent a catastrophe. This money will be a major drain on the economy and the poor, but enviros don’t agree that climate change will have much impact.
For example, the Calif. climate change rules incentivize solar & wind but offer no incentives for hydroelectric & nuclear. These strategies are all low carbon. But when enviros have to choose between hydroelectric/nuclear power and climate change, climate change is considered the lesser evil.
So, since the affects of climate change will be no worse than hydroelectric/nuclear power, is it moral to hurt the poor for only minor enviro…
Really? Thousands of Trillions? Where did you get that number? I haven’t seen that! or anywhere close to that.
That number is my own estimate based on what has to be done to offset the “damage” immediately. In short, according to activists, we need a massive replacement of coal and natural gas fired power plants (i.e most power plants in the world) with nuclear power, hydroelectric, solar, wind, etc. A very large number of the manufacturing plants in the world have to be significantly retooled and revamped or retrofitted for expensive sequestration And some amount of retrofitting or replacement will need to be done to automobile engines. What would be your financial estimate on a global scale? And what effect will this have on the poor?
The Pope misses the Catholic mark.
Instead of “climate change.” the Pope ought to be calling a worldwide summit on “STOPPING THE KILLING AND INJUSTICES AGAINST UNBORN HUMAN BEINGS.”
Carrie, you seem to miss the point, and without giving the Pope even the slightest benefit of the doubt by reading so much as a single word of what he has written! Give him a little credit already before you blast him.
The point is that this IS a pro-life position. People will die – by the hundreds of thousands if not millions, due to the affect of man-made climate change. Open your heart and your mind, you who have ears to hear!
Dear Mr. Fellow, since you seem to be an environmentalist, I’m hoping that you can clarify something for me. Given the issue that I mentioned earlier regarding AB32, is it true that the vast majority of environmentalists don’t believe that the effects of manmade climate change are worse than those of hydroelectric plants and nuclear plants OR is there fierce debate among environmentalists between those who think it will cause a major catastrophe and those who think it won’t be any worse than the effects of hydroelectric dams or nuclear power?
Mr. Seitz: I’m not aware of a survey that would demonstrate such a thing, so I don’t know how to answer. My sense is that most environmentalists would see the ecological costs of dams and nuclear power plants to be pretty local. They both have strongly problematic impacts on fish who are either impeded by the dam or cooked in the heated water produced. Even when disasters happen (think 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima), the serious affects are quite local, or at best regional.
Climate change is different in that it affects the entire planet, it changes entire ecosystems, is already and will continue to force species into new habitats or into extinction.
Humans might not be killed off as a species, but thousands or millions of us…
Dear Mr. Fellow, you may need to recheck your logic. If climate change is true, we need to shut down natural gas and coal power plants and quickly replace them with nuclear, hydroelectric, and other low carbon forms of energy. Also, any negative impacts from nuclear & hydroelectric are localized and aren’t global, so this would be an additional reason why we need to use these options. BUT the fact that the environmental lobby didn’t push nuclear power and hydroelectric during AB32 related rulemaking strongly indicates that they don’t think there is much harm from man made climate change. Or, if there is, its impacts are less than any negative impacts from hydroelectric or nuclear power.
Your Fellow Catholic”: This position is idiotic, even from the Pope. Global warming is a scientific farce, and leftist academia and government have kept contrary views from being effectively heard. Instead, you are offering the same old, and failed, “Seamless Garment” arguments of C. Bernardin (and others in the wastebasket of Catholic Zombie-Liberals).
Yes, the Pope is against “rigid” Catholic dogma, demonstrating his devotion to the Latin American brand of Marxism and economic confiscation a/k/a “Liberation Theology”. Francis needs to be more devoted to teaching salvation, and how to avoid sins, including abortion, fornication, homosexual sex, and the like. But he does not care much about these, as many, many in Latin…
(Continued . . .) “care little for what the Church says about sexual expression. It is better to attack the USA and its economic prosperity. This makes the Pope a pawn in the effort to force governmental control of individual economic endeavor and success. Happy that we have African prelates to carry the Faith forward.
“The point is that this IS a pro-life position. People will die – by the hundreds of thousands if not millions, due to the affect of man-made climate change.” Another claim that cannot be substantiated by empirical evidence, not an iota. What you want YFC is global control of the individual, tells us what drive, how to heat our homes, what clothes to wear. etc. This is the essence of the left and Bergogolio has bought into the lie.
Canisius, a man died this week because a zoo animal escaped in the torrential floods in Georgia. Tell his wife that there is not one iota of empirical evidence!
You need to check your medications, “Your Fellow Catholic”. There were and will always be floods and natural disaster. And, there will always be the poor, as Jesus said.
What the Pope appears to be doing is to clean out the Church’s Holy Men, and those intent on preserving the Faith for generations. He is replacing it with Zombie-Liberal clap-trap, and muffling criticisms of all crimes sexual. And, Francis is making the Catholic Church culpable in the actions of popular governments, all of which lead to population control, abortion, and sexual license. He does not care and others in his Kabuki dance of leadership do not either.
Church Leaders Blame Massive Flood in Georgia on Former Communist Rulers
Meanwhile, Georgian Orthodox Church leaders are calling on the recent tragedy as a punishment from God for melting down churches to build the zoo.
“When Communists came to us in this country, they ordered that all crosses and bells of the churches be melted down and the money used to build the zoo,” said Patriarch Ilia II, head of the Orthodox Church in Georgia.
Patriarch Ilia II expressed his sentiments towards victims of the recent flooding incident in Georgia, saying that many lives were distraught “at the expense of destroyed…
‘Apocalyptic scenes in Georgia as lions, bears, wolves and a hippo are among dozens of animals on the loose in the streets of Tbilisi as church leaders blame catastrophe on decision to melt down monastery’s bells.
Meanwhile the head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ilia II, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as telling a Sunday Mass that Georgia’s former Communist rulers could be seen as involved in the disaster.’
‘The sin will not go without punishment. I am very sorry that Georgians fell so that a zoo was built at the expense of destroyed churches.’
Taken from Human Events
“Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.” In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
SOCIALISM AND GLOBAL WARMING
“In America, socialism is bent on removing individual freedoms and placing the government in charge of our lives. The global warming issue is an important liberal strategy for the advancement of socialism, under the environmental movement guise of saving the Earth.
According to A Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming
Socialism and Global Warming
“Fear of AGW provides a way to engage everyone in the movement. Socialists of all stripes no longer have to spew Marxist notions that turn most people off; now, they can talk the science of global warming and hurricanes and massive floods and such, and, using fear, trample the average guy into their socialist goals of stifling capitalism, growth, and having the government take over the economy through this environmental back-door.”
1940’s Socialist Party president Norman Thomas said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”
John Bellamy Foster, editor of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review, said in 2005: “The problem is capitalism. The only solution, as difficult as this may be to contemplate at the present time, is socialism.”
Havel Wolf, member of the Seattle Audubon Society says “The Communist Party USA’s environmental program “presents a viable plan to carry out on the long march to socialism.” –1998
Catherine, do not be afraid. The Vicar of Christ is telling you something important. Don’t start with pre-conceived ideas. Take the document and read.
I will, a flood empirical evidence does not make as much as you on the Left want it to You on the Left YFC since Marx have wanted complete control over the individual especially in the economic sphere, communism failed so now you are trying again with environmental controls. I often imagine a world without the Left and how much personal liberty and morality would increase…
My Prediction: This will be a wildly liberal, pro environmentalist agenda encyclical.
Second Prediction: It will be the most popular encyclical in history among Catholics.
And I will ignore from page 1, like the liberals ignored Humanie Vitae
“Canisisu”: Please do not ignore, but fight. You have fire and gifts with words, so attack.
No one is bound by what the Pope says in his encyclical. These statements and beliefs are merely private observations which are far afield from the “Faith and Morals” boundary of Papal authority.
Even encyclicals that have no infallible teachings, are still part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and require obedience.
Humanae vitae was an encyclical. Are you saying that “no one is bound by what the Pope says in [that] encyclical”?
St. Chris, it’s true that we’re not bound to an encyclical letter as we would be be an Ecumenical Council, but the encyclical letter does fall on a continuum of authority with the Ecumenical Council being at the top and the Apostolic Exhortation near the bottom. Therefore, his encyclical letter needs to be taken seriously although its efficacy [or truth] would be evaluated within the context of the rest of Catholic doctrine.
Fully two-thirds (by the numbers: nn.14-61, and virtually all of nn.101-217) are entirely secular-atheist pronouncements mostly based (they cite their sources) on the ’92 Rio Earth Summit (n. 186f), the 72 Stockholm Declaration, the 2012 “Rio+20” Convention, and the Basel Convention—entirely non-Catholic, entirely non-magisterial teaching. Oh: Jesus Christ does get a section: 4 par’s. 96-100. Francis of Assisi is mentioned in more sections than Jesus (At least 7x’s). It is an old canard to “force” obedience to heterodox doctrine: this is heterodoxy in spades.
The Pope has no authority as Pope to speak about science and none of us are required as a matter of faith to believe the science. But he did teach science for a living as I recall. But that does not excuse the faithful from learning about the science according to their own ability, and applying the Francis’ moral teaching to that science.
As for “infallible” teaching, so why do we not follow Veterum Sapientiae, (1962) for example, an apostolic constitution, being a pronouncement much higher than any “encyclical”; & VS being a statement entirely Catholic, declaring the use of Latin in the liturgy and priestly studies forever as the norm of the Church? That is a constitution that you, YFC, declared S. John XXIII “got wrong”, so you could dismiss it. But now, obedience is to be used against the rest of us, to cow us into secular-atheist servitude to an entirely divergent teaching? I think not.
Steve Phoenix, thank you for the reference to Veterum Sapientiae. Yes, it is not infallible, but it should be revived. Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church.
I can say that because – first the use of Latin is a disciple only and only in the Latin Rite and second because subsequent Popes made a change that made it no longer the discipline of the Church. I didn’t supersede it, Paul VI did.
Unlike your rejection of this encyclical, at least “liberals” – actuallly 90% of Catholics – READ or at least tried to understand the thing before we rejected it.
Mr. Fellow, politically speaking, your statistic is at least 50 years old. As of 10 years ago, registration was split 50/50 Republican/Democrat. If these numbers have moved, it would only be towards the GOP.
Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ told us to help the poor. He didn’t tell us to ask the government to force middle class working people to pay more taxes to help the poor. On top of that, most of those taxes end up in the pockets and pensions of government bureaucrats.
The famous Papal letter on Gaia is but a Socialist Manifesto worthy of the Sixties. For an example read paragraph 94 where he explains the justification the Paraguayan Bishops offer for the need for agrarian reform to give land to all that work the earth.
Global Warming vs. ETERNAL WARMING = Slogans and agendas that kill both the body and the soul.
The deliberately ambiguous term “Pro-Choice’ was the result of ungodly raging feminists turning to Madison Ave advertisers to come up with a catchy slogan that would appeal to a broader range of society. They did not want the harness of the term ‘pro-abortion”. IOW they knew that the truthful words “pro-abortion” wouldn’t sell. Global Warming selling Socialists knew that they also needed a deceitful marketing tool to fool a very dumbed down society of sheep and even many of the elect.
We have not listened to the spiritual housecleaning tips or warning advice that Our Lady of Fatima gave to the world regarding Russia spreading her errors. We have not eliminated the choking stranglehold of noxious fumes within our own house. If you are going to fall for a slogan or promote a ruse, then housecleaning charity begins at home.
The warming that we should be concerned with is the ETERNAL WARMING that comes from following Satan’s clever marketing ruses right off of a steep cliff. Hell exists whether you believe it or not. We will now be hearing more deceitful rhetoric such as “Climate Justice.” Now behind the scenes the Socialists are licking their chops in sheer amazement. Rabid feminists also gleefully marveled at the success of getting the world to embrace the words, “Pro-Choice” This deceitful term evilly enables a mother to feel liberated about having the freedom (choice) to murder her own flesh and blood. Global warming and climate justice rhetoric enables Russia to spread her errors.
Catherine, our Lady of Medgurgorje said that Satan’s plan was to destroy the earth.
Oh great point A!
“Catherine”: “ETERNAL WARMING” — hahahaha. That is an excellent phrase.
Do you give permission for us to use it freely??
Thank you St. Christopher! Yes, you may absolutely use it freely. I have great confidence in your God given ability to always put that phrase to good use. : )
For what it is worth, I have been reading the pdf. version in Italian of “Laudato Sii” for the last two days. It is 180 pages long, 246 par. with footnotes, and it is striking in showing who really appears to have written it. The writer of this piece has got to be putative radical socialist Bp. Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo (also of Argentina, b. 1942, from the diocese of Buenos Aires) who taught philosophy at the Catholic U. there: it is much more clearly written than PF’s Evangelii Gaudium.
You will notice when you read Laudato Sii some disturbing things, esp. the fingerprints of Sanchez-Sorondo’s socialism (cf. “Integral Ecology”, “Cultural Ecology”, “Ecology and Daily Life” (n. 138) in which Sanchez-Sorondo, er, I meant the Pope tries to moralize on “ecological spirituality” (“spiritualita ecologica”), Hmm: Now where did I miss that in the Nicene Creed. But especially you should note that Jesus Christ does not make an appearance until par 82, and some brief NT quotes in 96-101. Christ is not the essential message here.
Now, PF’s ghost-writer, Sanchez-Sorondo, started out as a strict Thomist when he got his Ph.D at the Angelicum in the 1970’s, has since veered further and further off course, first, into neo-Hegelian theory (dovetails nicely with Marxist-Leninist principles); since the’90’s his articles have a familiar ring: “Sustainable Development (1999)”, “Food Needs of the Developing World in the Early 21st Century” (2000), and my favorite “Globalization and Inequality” (2002). But make no mistake: Sanchez-Sorondo wrote “Laudato Sii” : it discloses a clearer, more unified focus and style.
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, of resources. And we all know what injustice means: cf. n. 157: violence will 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.
Laudato Sii also calls for “urgent international agreements” (probably as secret as the current international trade plan zipping through Congress) (n. 173) and mentions “powerful nations” that are polluting the ocean and the air which should be punished for such actions. (Is he talking about China? India? I wonder whom?) The most disturbing sections are nn. 163-201, where a naked agenda for World Court-type action (Schnellnhuber, his science expert, an atheist and population-control-type has long advocated this)will throttle certain countries facilitated by their willing leaders.
And, I expect that most people have heard of Hans Joachim (“John”) Schellnhuber, mathematician, theoretical physicist, now a member of the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences. He of course is a radical global-warmist; at a 2009 conference he claimed 6 to 7 billion people would die due to global warming. Of course, he is an atheist, pro-population control (ABORTION, hello) and believes that world population should be diminished by several billion. He also has called for a “Global Court” to judge environmental crimes; also, fo a world authority, reigning over all governments to enforce environmental diktat. He was to be at PF’s side when the “encyclical” was announced. I have read through the 246 paragraphs (about 180 pages) and especially…
..especially paragraphs 164-201 bear Schnellnhuber’s fingerprints, calling for punitive world dictatorship. Nice advisor, PF! Glad it wasn’t someone from a rad trad Catholic group!
Wait, is it class warfare, or is generational warfare?, I’m confused. Or is it your warfare against a Pope who supports Vatican II and the social teachings of the Church and the development of a modern liturgy? I’m confused, which is it?
I applaud you for reading it. Although you must have been reading the leaked version if you started two days ago.
I think Pope Francis wrote it himself.
Anonymous,June 18, 2015, 10:59 pm: I highly doubt that PF wrote this encyclical himself (except for a couple contributions of Romano Guardini quotes, Guardini being the subject of PF’s failed Ph.D. thesis at Frankfurt), because the style, compared to Evangelii Gaudium, is well-ordered, well-laid out (although almost entirely secular-humanistic, in places merely Schellnhuber’s secular-atheistic content),, and it marches solemnly toward Gomorrah in its singular focus.
And, other than Jesus Christ getting 4 par’s (96-100) to Himself and the NT, it virtually is a UN document, which is probably why St Francis of Assisi was put out there as representative of the Christian life in place of Christ Himself.