Now that the Green Encyclical is about to be released, a good question to ask is why is the Pope doing this?  The answer is obvious and disheartening.  The Pope, with a few notable exceptions, most significantly in regard to abortion, shares the prejudices of most left of center educated people in the West.  For them the environment is the cause of causes, and they embrace it with a religious devotion.  The added bonus of course is that global warming, or climate change, or whatever name the scam goes under, is an excellent excuse for more government.  For the left of center the answer to virtually any problem is to scream for more government.  Our Pope has a naïve faith in government and a distaste for free enterprise.  This is not unusual when one considers his background.  Argentina is largely an economic basket case because its political class has overwhelmingly embraced heavy government intervention in the economy, that has led to stagnant growth, crony capitalism and immense corruption, all in a country that is blessed with natural resources that should largely ensure prosperity.  Thus we have the Green Encyclical which seeks to make the globe Argentina writ large.

John Hinderaker at Powerline points out that the Encyclical is as wrong in its premises as it is in its conclusions:

First, the Pope has no idea what he is talking about. His letter is full of factual errors. For example:

Scientific consensus exists indicating firmly that we are in the presence of a worrisome warming of the climate system.

This is false. There has been no net global warming for something like 18 years, according to satellite data, the most reliable that we have.

In recent decades, that the heating was accompanied by the constant rise in the sea level….

Sea level has been rising for approximately 12,000 years, first dramatically as the Earth warmed rapidly at the end of the last Ice Age, and much more slowly in recent millennia. Currently, the rate of rise of sea level is not increasing.

…and is also hard not to relate it to the increase in extreme weather events, regardless of the fact that we can not attribute a cause scientifically determined to each particular phenomenon.

Wrong again. Extreme weather events are not increasing. This isn’t an opinion, it is a fact: there is no plausible empirical claim to the contrary. In fact, for what it is worth, the climate models that are the sole basis for warming hysteria predict fewer extreme weather events, not more, because the temperature differential between the equator and the poles will diminish.

It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanism, and the variations of the orbit of the Earth, the solar cycle), but numerous scientific studies indicate that most of the global warming of recent decades is due to the large concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other) issued mainly because of human activity.

Putting aside the fact that there hasn’t been any net warming during the last two decades, this is precisely the issue that is the subject of intense scientific debate–a debate that, it becomes increasingly clear, the realists are winning. For the Pope to wade into this controversy would be nearly inexplicable, absent some overriding motive.

That motive is, apparently, hostility toward free enterprise and the prosperity that it creates. Francis has manifested such hostility in previous statements, and it comes through again in his anti-global warming letter. Francis sounds like just another leftist: the solution to global warming is more state control to dictate how people live, and new international organizations to direct vast transfers of wealth and power.

Go here to read the rest.  The danger to Catholicism from all this rubbish is that the Faith will be tainted for decades by this attempt by a Pope to write into the Faith his antipathy to free markets and his desire for more government that will inevitably slow economic development in a world that cries out for it.  Pope Francis has a special fondness for the poor, and that is good because his policies, if embraced by governments, will inevitably make more of them.


More to explorer


  1. An encyclical or any document for that matter which states things that are false – scientifically or otherwise – cannot be accepted and must be opposed. If the Truth matters, then falsehood must be opposed. This Papacy is a disaster.

  2. The pope has a special devotion to the poor; he has said we need to kneel before them and adore them. Too bad he does not realize his economic and environmental policies would greatly increase their numbers worldwide.

  3. I can tell you that the leftists are having a field day with this global warming Pope. When I try to point out that we’ve always had cycles of warming and cooling in our world history, and the ‘research’ that prove global warming is bogus, this Pope is thrown in my face every time. I almost wish a massive cold wave would sweep the world for a year or two, so I could have the guilty pleasure of seeing and hearing these fanatical leftists moan, piss, and wail about not having enough fuel to heat their houses. Then I could taunt them about how their retarded effort to stop oil exploration, fracking, and the building of nuclear power plants led to this fine mess!

  4. Yes, and this Western zeitgeist mentality also explains the acceptance of the homosexual agenda; the desire to find a “work around” for divorced and remarried Catholics and Holy Communion; and my favorite issue, the death penalty.

    On these issues we see the clerical class in the West trend decidedly left, because they have absorbed or actively consumed the prevailing left-bias in Western academe, media, and culture.

    Sad for the world’s sake that the spotless Bride of Christ gets obscured by the countless small and large betrayals of our shepherds. I supposed it always was so, but it seems, like civilization’s decline in general now, to be accelerating.

  5. Since evangelization is one of a Catholic’s main responsibilities, this quasi-political issue becomes a serious obstacle to conversion of rational people.
    On the other hand, the eco-worshippers and self-righteous could care about God or his Church, unless it enhances their false world view…which this nonsense does.

    I ponder the harm to the environment that mere carpenters, like St Joseph, have done to the environment, cutting down those CO2 consuming trees for his business.

    Shame that Caesar and his empire didn’t take better control of those things. We can be thankful that we have the UN no to correct such folly.

  6. Obviously, the real test for the encyclical will be its reception at the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21/CMP11) in Paris, beginning on the 30th November 2015. Everything else is something of a side-show.

  7. “Everything else is something of a side-show.”

    Actually I would characterize the UN as a side show when it isn’t a freak show. One of the many problems with the Green Encyclical is the Church getting in bed with the UN, an organization characterized by extreme anti-Catholicism as of late.

  8. The new eco-friendly green energy Pope Mobile soon to be released by the Vatican; consultations with the good ole’ hippies at “Other Power” are underway. 😉
    On a serious note, I doubt the Pope is willing to live off grid with a less than 99% capacity factor for electricity as the men and women at Other Power in Colorado have done for the past decade or so. I have to give those people credit for putting their money where their mouth is. Their schemes are rather ingenious. There are too few such honest and hardworking people left, and certainly none in the Vatican.

  9. “Why” indeed. Why the general acceptance of these false ideologies held by “most left of center educated people in the West.”? WHY do they believe it?
    Could it be that it is just that the practice of liberalism is simple and easy- requires not much of a person, if social responsibility is shrugged off to the shoulders of the State.
    And as long as the beer and honey flow, and the standard of living is at least pretty good, it is ok to disregard behaviors that are not healthy for us as individuals nor corporately.. Live and let live. Only when push comes literally to shove will people want again to require communal standards.

  10. By communal standards I definitely do Not mean standards imposed on a community by the secular State, but I mean standards that have grown over our history, both from natural law,and a common understanding of Who God is, and who we are. Human dignity is what is lost by liberalism.

  11. Because whatever happens, Pope F doesn’t want the worldlies to be angry with him.

    And, instead of going out and making disciples of all nations, he is being a disciple of all worldly cranks

  12. Donald R McClarey wrote, “Actually I would characterize the UN as a side show…”
    Nevertheless, that, I believe, is its target audience.
    One recalls Père Joseph de Tremblay’s astute advice to Richelieu on divining the policies and predicting the actions of the Holy See: “Watch the Juggler’s eyes, not his hands.”

  13. Maybe one of the upsides of all this nonsense will be increased challenges about the reality of climate and the implications to mankind of fixing the alleged problem. Another side benefit might be an awakening by Catholics as to why Pope Francis is involving himself in such a distantly religious and controversial matter while neglecting his duties of helping folks achieve eternal life.

  14. The “Catholic” left falsely accuses the late William F. Buckley of coining “Mater Si, Magistra No”, and they have used that lie as one of their founding myths with which to beat conservatives up as “cafeteria Catholics” for 50 years.
    Has anyone already beat me out to being the first to coin “Laudate No”. I hope not. I’d love it if I could now become a part of the “Catholic” left’s folklore for decades to come.

  15. I expect that most people have heard of Hans Joachim (“John”) Schellnhuber, a mathematician and theoretical physicist who was recently made member of the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences. He of course is a radical global-warmist and at a 2009 conference claimed 6 to 7 billion people would die due to global warming. Of course, he is an atheist and believes that world population should be diminished by several billion. He also called for a “Global Court” to judge environmental crimes as well as a world authority, over all governments to enforce environmental diktat. He will be at the side of PF tomorrow when the “encyclical” is announced. I have read through the 246 paragraphs (about 180 pages) of the version in Italian, and especially the pars.163-201 outlining “Actions to be Taken” bear his fingerprints.

    But also, overall, the writer of this piece (“Laudato Sii”, “Praise be..” from St. Francis’ Canticle of the Sun) 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 (although disturbingly so, esp. when you get the aforementioned seftion, but also to “Integral Ecology”, “Cultural Ecology”, “Ecology and Daily Life” (n. 138) in which Sanchez-Sorondo, er, I meant the Pope tried to moralize on “ecological spirituality” (“spiritualita ecologica”), and that now, being a Catholic means being ecological. Now everyone must give up all they have (to whom? For what? A. To world elites governing us) “for the sake of the poor.”

    And by the way, Sanchez-Sorondo, who started out as a strict Thomist when he got his Ph.D at the Angelicum in the 1970’s, has veered further and further, first, into neo-Hegelian theory (dovetails nicely with Marxist-Leninist principles) and since the 1990’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: PF wrote the tortuously confusing Evangelii Gaudium: Sanchez-Sorondo wrote “Laudato Sii” : it discloses a clearer, more unified focus and style.

    You may have also noted: the paucity of the mentioning Jesus Christ and the Gospel as the norm of any life of Christian moral imperative(good ol’ Gesu does get a mention in the “encyclical” (at last: unless I missed a passing mention, not until in par. n. 82, and then Jesus and some vague NT fragments in par. 96-100): He is also invoked in a couple other places as an afterthought to try to sacralize this neo-Paul-Erlich piece.

    But the real focus is class warfare: this time between the generations: cf. par. 159, “La Giustizia Tra le Generazioni”: we greedy people are being unjust to younger generations by our use and development of the land, of the resources, of the earth. And we all know what injustice calls for: (Laudato Sii doesn’t literally say this: but I am supplying the logical conclusion): Revolution, destruction of unjust structures, where necessary, the use of violence to achieve ends, and of course the seizing of assets and their re-distribution. (Re-distribution by world government authority as an inherent principle is one of the tenets of Laudato Sii. Ahhh, Gustavo Gutierrez, your bitter fruits are about to ripen.

  16. Actually I think this makes perfect sense for Francis. If I recall correctly he said that he became a priest to change society – not to save souls. He as Archbishop in Buenos Aires said at a conference of Latin American bishops that the episcopacy should make policy and the laity implement it, totally disregarding the role and dignity of the laity in ordering society. He has denigrated traditional practices in favor of social activism. He de-emphasizes doctrine for praxis and belittles those who hold to traditional doctrine. I suspect he is quite intent on change the economic systems of developed nations – one that he believes will be more “just.”

    He would fit in well with those of ancient Palestine who sought a political Messiah.

  17. Fr. Z recommends that for any and all of the Catholic Left who shove this encyclical in your face(s) just show ’em Summorum Pontificum and tell them they have to obey THAT.

    I could rant some more about the Roman Pontiff. I’ve said too much already and I can’t add to what has been said and written about him here and elsewhere. I am deeply disappointed in Pope Francis. Having said that, I am a sinner in need of Confession and I’ll work to pull the steel I-bar girder out of my own eye first.

  18. why? Maybe because teaching Faith and morals does not provide for the immunity granted to diplomats from suffering consequences of any activity or development that may become a problem for the ‘poor’ or innocents and, for an opportunity to cash in on elite visitors using the City for a setting.

  19. Steve Phoenixtop wrote, “ cf. par. 159, “La Giustizia Tra le Generazioni”: we greedy people are being unjust to younger generations by our use and development of the land, of the resources, of the earth”

    I suspect not a few people will use Sir Boyle Roche’s retort: “When a debate arose in the Irish House of Commons on the vote of a grant which was recommended by Sir John Parnell, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as one not likely to be felt burdensome for many years to come – it was observed in reply, that the House had no just right to load posterity with a weighty debt for what could in no degree operate to their advantage. Sir Boyle, eager to defend the measure of Government, immediately rose, and in a very few words, put forward the most unanswerable argument which human ingenuity could possibly devise. “What, Mr. Speaker!” said he, “and so we are to beggar ourselves for fear of vexing posterity! Now, I would ask the honourable gentleman, and still more honourable House, why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity; for what has posterity done for us?”

  20. You people disgust me.

    The teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI aligned with your particular worldview and therefore were sacrosanct. (And those few teachings that didn’t align with your worldview were ignored.) To question or criticize the pope — or at least those two popes — was to invite epithets of “heretic” or “apostate.”

    Now we have a pope with a worldview — and a lived experience — vastly different from your privileged existence. Now the pope is the apostate — in your humble but vociferous opinion.

    It is smug, small minded people like you who give Catholicism a bad name.

  21. “It is smug, small minded people like you who give Catholicism a bad name.”

    Why thank you Dave for those kind, Christian sentiments. Get back to us when you actually wish to respond to the content of the post.

  22. Why David, thank you so much for providing a pitch perfect example of the type of person I just wrote a post about. Your timing is simply remarkable.

  23. David’s view is indeed a perfect example of Rex Mottram Catholicism (an apt description from one of the best novels in English Literature, in my opinion).

    OF COURSE we criticize the Pope succumbing to a form of Naturalism that seems to elevate worldly concerns above the salvation of souls, or worse, suggests that if Christians do not subscribe to a specific political agenda to address this phony issue, they are sinning.

    It’s simple: a Pope’s job description is simply to guard and hand over faithfully what he has received, namely, the doctrine of the Faith. Issuing pronouncements about contested secular issues like climate change or whether society needs the death penalty because of our supposedly advanced criminal justice system are beyond the authority given by Christ to the successor of Peter. As such, when Popes enter into these issues, they may respectfully be disagreed with.

  24. Well, what do you expect David and the Pope-Francisistas to do when they cant respond to the facts…Emotionalism usually wins today anyway.

    In fact, another matter to consider in “Laudate Sii” is that it appears to focus more attention on following the “perfect life” of S. Francis of Assisi, rather than the “controversial life” of Jesus Christ. Christ is too much baggage these days, after all.

    Remember the 13th century Fraticelli, the ecological and political extremists of their day, who believed following Christ and the Gospels was not necessary: the life of Francis was sufficient? Regarding Laudate Sii, I have the Italian text in pdf, so I haven’t yet counted the number of references to Francis v. those of Christ: but Christ’s appearance is mere veneer in this “encyclical” for Sanchez-Sorondo to “get what they want”, another distant, immune super-government (Schnellnhuber’s “World Court” and “Global Authority”) that will shame and punish all those who “disgust them” into serfdom. Or worse.

    By the way, Romano Guardini was cited at least two times in this pronouncement, perhaps a tribute by Sanchez-Sorondo to Bergoglio’s failed thesis project at Frankfurt. To my knowledge it is the first time Guardini has been cited in a papal “encyclical”. Just an interesting detail.

  25. I’ve had it with this Marxist imposter masquerading as a Pope..who voted for this sad excuse anyway?

  26. Steve Phoenixtop wrote, “To my knowledge it is the first time Guardini has been cited in a papal “encyclical””

    Romano Guardini was one of the most important Catholic philosophers of the 20th century. He influenced such thinkers as Joseph Pieper, Jean Gebser and Ladislav Hanus. Pope Benedict XVI wrote a forward to a new edition of his Der Herr [The Lord]

  27. Re. Guardini: I am aware of his influence in the recent past in the Church: but this is the first time he has been cited (footnote) I am fairly certain in an encyclical. Just interesting, since he was to be the focus of Bergoglio’s thesis at Frankfurt.

  28. Jedediah you want to know who voted for Cardinal Bergoglio? Well you can start by asking Cardinal Mc Carrick. He didn’t vote for him because he couldn’t vote in the conclave due to his age but he strongly persuaded others to do so …..well at least according to the the speech he gave at Villanova University. It’s on you tube… Pretty interesting if you ask me… He talks of an “influential Italian man” visiting him before the conclave 2013 while he was in Rome….. said if Cardinal Bergoglio becomes the pope it is a promise that he will change the Church in five years…. Funny that Pope Francis said some months ago that he had only 3 or so years left…. sorta fits the “five year change the Church” promise from the Italian mystery man Cardinal Mc Carrick spoke about?… One can write a mystery suspence novel based on it. Keep the Faith because we are living in some very diabolical disorienting times.

  29. I had a curious experience reading sections of Laudato si (haven’t read the whole thing yet). Abortion is mentioned only once, but after I decided to read sections with abortion in the back of my mind (i.e. technology of abortion, individualism leading to abortion, etc.), it was as if the whole document snapped into clarity for me. This is a standard work of Christian morality, which has been stretched to cover a subject that may have needed covering but which is too broad and complex.

  30. …As to why, the impression I have is that this is an attempt to get environmentalists to see the Church is not wrong on population control. In the aggregate this is not likely, but it may save a few souls here and there.

  31. “The new eco-friendly green energy Pope Mobile soon to be released by the Vatican’
    Paul, does it have pedals?

  32. Why! Because the pope, Vatican bureaucrats, and AGW cultists-with-credentials are not smart people. Worse (You can’t cure stupid, but it’s not a sin.) for them: they both have too much to say (responsibility?) and they rate ideology far above Truth. .

  33. Laudato Sii, no. 173: Here is where PF, Schnellnhuber and Sanchez-Sorondo really get revved up:

    “Urgent international agreements that will be realized, given the limited capacity of local bodies to intervene effectively. Relations between States must safeguard the sovereignty of each, but also agreed to establish paths to avoid local disasters that would end up hurting everyone.

    We need global regulatory frameworks that impose and that impede unacceptable actions, such as the fact that powerful countries discharge of waste and other countries highly polluting industries.” ( My translation, from the Italian)

    Any guess who one of those “powerful countries” might be? Hmm?

  34. This is the first time I have ever come to this website. I am saddened by the tenor of most of the comments, especially by the fact that all too many are personal attacks on the Pope himself. To discuss the content of the encyclical and to offer positives (surely there must be something in this document that is worth affirming) and negatives (identified specifically with appropriately reasonable and rational critique) are both obviously needed and acceptable. I am amazed at how people offering comments here seem to be able to read a document of this size and complexity so quickly and then to be able to comment critically immediately. It does not encourage me about our Catholic ability to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to people of our time and culture. Most people I know do not like being attacked immediately upon saying something. Why should they bother to listen to us if this is how we Catholics talk to one another about the teachings of the Pope.

  35. Golly, I read the other comments and wonder how truth is so hard to understand and accept. At the rate we are going, it seems some will never accept the truth of global warming until Miami is swamped by the ocean and surf is beating at its structures.

  36. So what’s the big deal about “climate change”? I embraced it decades ago as a little boy marveling at God’s creation and goodness. He gave us Spring (new life and warmth), then Summer (growth and greening of His Bounty), then Fall (harvest of that bounty), then Winter (sharing that bounty as the earth grows cold).

    Only grown ups can turn the Seasons God created into something to be feared and exploited by those who have no love for either Man nor God.

  37. “Any guess who one of those “powerful countries” might be? Hmm?”

    Well, it can’t be the U.S., since we exported our industry (and pollution) to China. So it must be China! They have 50,000+ deaths a year due to their environmental problems.

  38. Here is another curio to take away from LS: Francis of Assisi of course is mentioned so prominently (He is mentioned at least 7x’s) takes pretty much the place of Jesus. But when we get to the famous “Canticle of the Sun” (Laudes Creaturarum), the all-important summary of the hymn (which keeps it from being a Deistic paean) is stripped out:

    “Happy those who endure in peace,
    for by You, Most High, they will be crowned.

    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.”
    Hmmm. A Final Judgment before Christ Our Lord in which mortal sin is a disqualifier. I guess it doesn’t quite work with PF’s view that souls that don’t merit eternal beatitude “cease to exist” (a comment he made to his friend Sclafari earlier this year).

  39. And, I am happy that some of the True Believers (of Global Pandemonium, and PF alike) are weighing in (“…At the rate we are going, it seems some will never accept the truth of global warming until Miami is swamped by the ocean “) on our retrograde viewpoints, because Francis is entirely “with” the Nanabedokw’Môlsem’s of the Present Age:

    He, like them, believe the “Doomsday predictions” (n. 161, LS) can no longer be doubted (even though again and again they are disproven) and PF with NM, et al, pessimistically assert(s) that the future, otherwise, of future generations will be “debris, desolation, and filth.” Now, THERE is a happy Francis, ever trusting in the Most High God.
    Pace et Bonum, yeah!

  40. Here is one more jewel: ” I am saddened by the tenor of most of the comments, especially by the fact that all too many are personal attacks on the Pope himself. ”

    We cite all the elements of this neo-Doomsday piece (yes, PF mentions the need to believe in ecological “Doomsday”,at is in #161): but of all the 246 paragraphs, putatively this is a pronouncedly secular document (Mr. Chochol hasn’t read it, so he doesn’t know this): nn’s 18-64 & 101-217, 2/3rds of the piece are entirely secular and make pretty much no reference at all to God or Jesus Christ.

  41. No one has to pay any mind to this ghost written piece. It has nothing to do with Faith or morals and should be ignored by all Catholics. Of course, the secular media and those who own it are drooling on themselves because they know most people are utterly ignorant of this fact.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: