Laudato Si: The New Age Kindergarten

From the official text of Laudato Si. Emphases mine. 


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.[53] Here we can add yet another argument for rejecting every tyrannical and irresponsible domination of human beings over other creatures. The ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us. Rather, 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.

Chris Ferrara has written an excellent piece about this and other pearls of LS. I invite you to visit the page and absorb the wisdom therein contained. I will, here, limit myself to some considerations of my own about the paragraph above.   

If this is Christianity, no one informed me of this up to now. I never knew that it is my duty to lead cats and dogs (and rats, and flies, and spiders) back to their Creator. I thought that God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next. That I would be called to lead Mickey Mouse, Felix The Cat, Gus and Jaq, and Pluto “toward a common point of arrival, which is God” was frankly nowhere. The Baltimore Catechism must be seriously deficient.   

Now, your average Patheos blogger might at this point wax lyrical about his new discovery that by not squashing spiders he is growing spiritually to a new dimension of oh so elevated spirituality in which Arachnophobia (or Insectophobia, or any other Phobia) has no place at all. But to me, this is no Christianity. A cow is there to give me a good steak. A forest is there to give me oxygen and fuel. We do not abuse Creation, but we certainly use it; and this creation is there for us to make good use of it, not to be led by us to a sort of Plant And Insect Nirvana.

No, this does not seem Christianity to me. Rather, this seems an attempt to let Christianity go beyond the message of Christ, in a kind of New Age Kindergarten where you can be taught that, at the end of a long path of self-discovery, there is a happy ending for every fly and every spider. The sacred cows cannot be very far away, and note that the Hindus do not eat their meat. 

There are evident echos of Teilhard de Chardin here, and of his strange ideas of permanent cosmic evolution tending towards that strange and ever blasphemous sounding Omega Point; the end of the journey where, after having abandoned Christianity, every freaking faggot Jesuit can de facto put whatever he wants. To those who want to delve in such heresies from a completely orthodox point of view I suggest the reading of One Hundred Years Of Modernism.  

It seems to me even more alarming than that. If cats and dogs (and flies and spiders) are all moving towards “a common point of arrival, which is God”, what is the special value of Baptism, or of belonging to the Christian religion? If the cat reaches his Feline Heaven, and the spider his arachno-nirvana, isn’t the human the more so destined to his paradise, irrespective of whether he was baptised or not? And if this is not the case, is not the unavoidable consequence that the salvation or damnation of the human will be decided, to a great extent, by the degree in which he has helped his fellow trees and spiders reach self-consciousness, by being oh so delicate with the latter and by hugging the former all the time? 

There is nothing here of Christianity. The Last Four Things cannot have any reasonable place in it. A complete reversal of the very concept of sin must be implied in this logic. In Francis’ Kindergarten, a joyous enviro-friendly humanity leads cats and dogs (and flies, and spiders) to their spiritual fulfillment whilst “respecting” sister Co2. It is a warped view of Christianity by which not Christ, but some further “evolution” of His message is the culmination, and the animal kingdom is promised a paradise of sort so we can all feel “inclusive” looking at the forest.

Even in V II times, teilhard de Chardin’s strange and more than vaguely blasphemous fantasy theology was still condemned by the Church, if still in 1962  

A decree of the Holy Office dated 30 June, under the authority of Pope John XXIII warned that “… it is obvious that in philosophical and theological matters, the said works [Teilhard’s] are replete with ambiguities or rather with serious errors which offend Catholic doctrine. That is why … the Rev. Fathers of the Holy Office urge all Ordinaries, Superiors, and Rectors … to effectively protect, especially the minds of the young, against the dangers of the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his followers”. (AAS, 6 August 1962).

The feeble mind of Jorge Bergoglio has not been protected from, or was rather already too corrupt not to embrace, the serious errors which offend Catholic doctrine. 

Now, someone might say that I am taking a paragraph in isolation and ignoring the context, in which Francis even does us the favour of mentioning Christ a couple of times. But this is exactly what we must do. No Pope will ever write an encyclical entirely devoted to espousing heretical thinking. What will happen is that – like every Modernist – he will publish texts in which the errors or outright heresies are mixed with the orthodoxy. We must, therefore, expose this pernicious ideology irrespective of what else there might be in this encyclical which might happen to be right. 

Heaven, Francis is the Pope! He is supposed to publish only 100% orthodox texts!  If Francis dishes us a plate containing excrements, we can’t pick the strawberries out of it and declare ourselves satisfied!






Posted on June 19, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. Like all error filled thinking there is usually some truth at the heart of it that is exaggerated or corrupted. Of course, the Catholic Faith demands that we give respect to the divine order with due care for creatures. After all, the splendour of the Creator is reflected in that which he has created and proper wonder at it can lift the soul to God. A purely utilitarian approach to creation and creatures has never been the Catholic way and the proper and respectful usage is part of man’s dominion over creation. We must remember also that nature as we experience it now is wounded by the effects of original sin, that catastrophic fall introduced disorder into creation and creatures. Its interesting that some of the OT messianic texts speak of a restoration of harmony in nature associated with the coming of the Messiah and of course the NT speaks of a new heaven and new earth. But all these are associated with the Redemption won by Christ in rescuing man from sin and its grievous effects. The Catholic doctrine of creation has no need of the poison of evolutionary type pantheism which corrupts the relationship between Creator and creation. I’m afraid this encyclical is enmeshed with all kinds of anti-Catholic thinking and not worthy of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

    • Yes.
      He takes the traditional concept of stewardship and deforms it in the Nazi-Un-concept of remaking the world by eco-maniacal standards through a World Government.
      The Teilhard de Chardin place is, of course, Teilhard de Chardin for the masses.
      I must also add that the new heaven and new earth aren’t anything that will happen during the present earth.
      But again, I do not think the man is being naive.
      He is just being himself.

  2. Isn’t this all just a tortured reading of Teilhard de Chardin?

  3. Whenever Christ is mentioned just think “New Age Christ” because that is exactly what we are getting. I expect the next de-cyclical to imply reincarnation- of course without saying the word.

  4. Enough to give you the ” creepy-crawlies “

  5. As Pope Pius VI said in Auctorum Fidei:

    In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

    Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

    It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

    In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.

  6. I am still reading blogs and forums on which people are still managing to do the mental gymnastics necessary in order to turn this rubbish into orthodox Catholic teaching. I can understand the natural wish of Catholics to defend the Pope but this guy became indefensible almost immediately after his election. It is said that he evokes a mixture of horror and amusement among some of his own high level former supporters, it is time that the more sensible of his electors and other senior clerics disowned his heresies.

  7. yes he is trying to rehabilitate the Jesuit “mastermind” Teilhard, whose work was not only condemned by the Holy Office in the 1950s, but also makes no sense. There is no evidence that we are all converging to an “Omega point” at all; and Jesus himself wondered whether when He returns he will find even ten men of faith.

    From someone 10x the intelligence of Bishop Bergoglio:

    “You can’t get any benefit or enlightenment from thinking about Teilhard. The ravages that he has wrought that I have witnessed are horrifying. I do everything I can to avoid having to talk about him. People are not content with just teaching him, they preach him. They use him like a siege engine to undermine the Church from within (I am not kidding) and I, for one, want no part of this destructive scheme.” – – Etienne Gilson

  8. What is this “fullness of God…attained by the risen Christ”? Is that when He became a member of the Trinity?

    • No, I think in his drunken way he wants to say here that the fullness of God was always there, and was already attained from all eternity by the entire universe. I know, it’s stupid, but I think this is what he wants to say.


%d bloggers like this: