Daily Archives: June 21, 2015
Four days of public debate have now gone by concerning the official text of the enviro-madness.
I doubt one single Catholic has changed his mind about the environment and so-called man-made global warming because of this enviro-embarrassment. If he has, he should have his head visited.
The situation is exactly as it was before: pope sides with the enviro-nutcases, the abortionists, the Nazi-nannies, the proto-communists and the whining tree-huggers. Sensible Catholics either ignore or condemn him and his ideology.
The liberal mind is fundamentally stupid. Whatever it touches, it destroys. The only thing that is generally spared is the popularity of the idiot among his idiotic supporters.
Chavez’ madness has ruined Venezuela, but certainly there will be enough profiteers, scroungers, garden variety idiots and common communists to approve of his work. Castro is the same. Francis is the same.
Still: as for Castro and Chavez, the popularity among the targeted audience is purchased at a very dear price: utter failure, and despise and ridicule among the functioning brains.
Francis is on the same trajectory as Chavez and Castro.
If Chavez or Castro had been popes, they would have written Laudato Si.
This long encycli-fart will be forgotten by the world in a matter of weeks, and remembered only by perverted BBC journalists to give themselves a tone every now and then. The encyclical will also, probably, be used by the UN Nazis in the coming months; but as they would have furthered their Nazi agenda anyway and this encyclical will not bring them new clients, the net effect is still zero.
A papal reputation squandered once again, and an encyclical that will be an embarrassment for the Church in the centuries to come.
As feared,it turns out the very long enviro-fart of this disgraceful Pontiff is stinking around in many directions.
Breitbart now informs us that Frankie quoted a Muslim poet to push his enviro-madness.
Now: it is not that no great poet was ever born, who was a Muslim. Omar Kayyam ( a Persian, not Arab; but a Muslim nevertheless) was poetically translated in English by Edward FitzGerald, and read and appreciated by countless – surely – extremely rigid Victorians. The same Victorians and Edwardians read and worshiped the extremely Catholic Dante. Art is art, you might say. Beauty is beauty. We love J.S. Bach, even is he was such a Proddie.
However, a pope must know that what he writes sends messages. He must know that when a pope mentions a Muslim poet, he is sending a signal of “equality of cultures” – or worse, “equality of religions” – to his readers. Whilst it is not forbidden, or even sinful, for a pope to, say, appreciate Kayyam’s poetry in his own study he must well know, if he has a shred of common sense, that he must avoid in his encyclicals every sign that might lead a reader to think that there is a kind of “world truth” of which others participate with the same dignity as the Catholic faith. The Muslims world cannot shed any light whatsoever on truth. Therefore, a Muslim poet has no place in a papal encyclical letter. I wonder how many popes did the same before Francis? I wonder why? I tell you why: because it would further religious indifferentism. And this is exactly what Francis does: furthering religious indifferentism on the sly. In Francis the furthering is, in fact, not even on the sly.
The atheist wannabe “scientist”, or the mentioning of the Muslim poet, all push towards the same goal: to show that Francis is just helping the Catholic side to reach this one World Truth, in which Muslims and atheists and Christians all work together for something that he deems so important but, not being related to salvation, is ultimately irrelevant.
What is not irrelevant is the Vatican propaganda of anyone and anything that is not Catholic.
And no, I do not think in his free time the man reads poetry. A resentful, ignorant boor does not become a fine mind just because the Cardinals made one of the biggest mistakes ever. The quote is, as pretty much everything in Francis work, designed to push this anti-catholic, alternative, “look at how different I am” agenda.
The entire article is here.
I report below some of the most interesting comments. Emphases mine.
Wealth enables people to afford better environmental stewardship. Pope Francis should champion economic development as a solution both to poverty and to environmental degradation. Unfortunately, at least as regards climate change, the leaked draft of the new encyclical does the opposite.”
“The Vatican’s partnering with the United Nations climate agenda is nothing short of an unholy alliance. The papal encyclical, no matter how nuanced it may read, will simply be used as a tool to support UN global warming ‘solutions’ that are at odds with most Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, overpopulation, and helping the poor nations develop. The Vatican appears to be taking an unprecedented step by seemingly endorsing a specific UN climate treaty.
“The climate activists are no doubt getting a PR boost from the pope’s entry into the climate debate. But ultimately, the pope’s views on climate science will do little to alter the opinions of Catholics about global warming. ”
“Throughout the last two years, in preparation for the encyclical rollout, the Vatican has relied solely upon global warming alarmists in its rush to judgment to meet the UN 2015 Sustainable Development Goals’ timetable. Additionally, during this process, the Vatican consulted primarily with and continues to rely upon radical population control proponents who exploit discredited climate change science to justify their extremist population reduction policies under the nuanced UN ‘reproductive sexual health’ rubric.
“Instead of welcoming our heartfelt disapproval of papal experts who promote policies in direct contravention of Catholic moral teaching, the Vatican authorities mocked and scoffed at our serious and faithful objections, by calling us ‘Tea Partiers’ and ‘deniers.’ This callous and flippant response exposed the Vatican’s political agenda.”
“Over the past 18 years, the best measurements of Earth’s global temperatures (by NOAA and NASA satellites) show no warming whatsoever. The total warming since 1979 has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC, and of that tiny warming, most can be attributed to natural causes, such as volcanoes. That leaves room for, at most one- or two-tenths of a degree due to carbon dioxide, which projects to half a degree or less of warming by 2100. Half a degree is not noticeable by any human and can have no serious consequences. This mere half a degree is not a prediction from supercomputers, but a simple observation based on the best global data, and it shows that catastrophic, or even harmful, global warming is not a reality.
“In short, over the past two centuries humans have, through productive and beneficial endeavors, added one molecule of CO2 to each ten thousand molecules of air. The feared and forecast dire consequences of that molecule are not coming to pass. Attempts at curtailing those human endeavors to remove that molecule would be flawed policies that will fail to solve a non-existent problem.”
“Pope Francis’s goal of preserving God’s earthly kingdom for future generations is shared by every ‘skeptic’ of man-caused global warming. But he will not preserve it by putting his moral authority behind a UN agenda that considers it a sin for the poor to use affordable, ever-cleaner fossil fuels to power their lives. More than a billion of the poorest people in the world would remain in abject poverty for generations if they are to rely on windmills, solar panels, and other unreliable and expensive sources of energy.”
What a shameful day, when a pope accepted to prostitute the prestige of an encyclical letter to promote his own popularity on fashionable political issues, of which he understands nothing anyway.
At this point you already all know about the latest, surprisingly coherent decisions in the Vatican. Lest it be told that I only speak of the man in order to criticise him, I would like to say a word or two of praise at least of the coherence involved.
1. The Vatican decision to shut down and destroy all air conditioners within the Vatican city (similar measures will be implemented in every Catholic diocese in time) is at least a sign of coherence. Granted, the one or other old prelate may die, at least indirectly, because of the heat that follows (it promises to be a very hot summer in Rome), but it is good to see that there is the willingness to put one’s sweat where one’s encyclical is. Note that the air conditioning appliances will be destroyed, not sold. It makes sense, as selling them would only encourage consumerism and shift the problem to other offices and households.
2. The decision, also announced, to put an immediate end to every travelling of the Pope is likewise to be praised. In the age of the Internet and social media, the voice of the Pope can reach pretty much anyone without any need to cause huge Co2 emissions for himself, his entourage, the security, the journalists, and the rest of the circus. Twitter is so environmentally friendly…
3. Even more coherent is the decision to put an end to World Youth Days. Millions of people gathering every time. A stunningly expensive exercise in terms of not only money (which can be given to the poor), but emissions. One can agree or not with the ideology of Laudato Si, but here is one saying that at least they practice their bad preaching.
4. I find the decision to have the Vatican carbon-neutral within 2016, and every diocesan office within 2019, a tad extreme. It will obviously require not only to sweat in summer, but also to freeze in winter; and the Roman winters can be fairly punishing at times, at least if you never lived in Connecticut, or Minnesota. It will require to curb the use of electricity, gas, fuel, mobility, food, everything. It will be a mess. But it will also give a great contribution in introducing that kind of simple, poor, rural society in which the Pontiff clearly sees the solution to our problems. And it will be an example. A great, if stupid, example.
There will also be other advantages. Why must the Pope use an old, environmentally disastrous Renault 4 to move within the Vatican? Will a bicycle not do? Or the good old feet? The man has put up such a belly, it can only be good for him. Eating less will also be very good for him and his colleagues. Less food = fewer “emissions” and less need for toilet paper, which is – as already explained to the Venezuelan people – also a polluter. Let us think about these things. The planet is poor and oppressed, and he/she/it is suffering.
5. Last, but not least, the obvious decision of the Pope to abandon his abundant, and completely redundant, quarters in the Domus Sanctae Marthae and move to the Papal Apartments. This decision was long due, but it became completely unavoidable now, as a pope causing emissions in two huge structures – in heating, cooling, security, and everything else – was an obvious crime against Poor Planet. This was very late, but at least it was done at last.
I am sure many other initiatives will be soon announced, and Francis will not fail to show how seriously he takes his own enviro-ranting. Again: I do not approve of the ranting, but at least I must commend the coherence.
Can you say it again?
None of this has been announced?
The A/Cs are working full time in the Vatican offices and homes? No sweating for Francis? No bycicle? Full meals? Aeroplane travel? World Youth Day? Business as usual?
It cannot be.
It cannot be! It would deserve him the title of….
The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History!
Who does he think he is, Al Gore?