Well, His Holiness Pope Francis has not yet issued his encyclical on the environment, but already it is attracting a great deal of attention. Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith makes a good case in his article suggesting that such an encyclical is perhaps not such a great idea. I'm with him on that, but of course there are various interests and various groups for whom such an encyclical will most likely be a 'godsend'.
During this post, I am going to be as balanced and level-headed as a conspiracy theorist fruit-cake can be, but I am confident that within the next year, readers of this blog may be joining me in my unshakable feeling that there is something going on in Rome today that only makes sense in accepting the possibility that there is a 'hidden hand' at work.
Why Pope Francis has got non-Catholic conspiracy theorists thinking
I suggested to a member of the Catholic clergy recently that Pope Francis's encyclical on the environment would give conspiracy theorists an irresistible bone to chew on. Today, I discovered on Prison Planet that His Holiness now has prominent conspiracy theorist, freedom-fighter and very loud man, Alex Jones, on his case and this, I predict, will run and run. Intervention into world politics on climate change will not just cast Pope Francis as a man clearly identifiable as of the political left-wing', but as a divisive figure who divides world opinion on a secular matter when such a position was not demanded of him in his role as Successor of St Peter.
In his usual brash way, Alex Jones observes, as a non-Catholic, the media's love affair with Pope Francis as something deeply unsettling and unusual. This is a feeling now well known to Catholics loyal to the See of Peter. When the Pope is lauded by the secular world, there is something wrong.
The idea that with the election of Pope Francis, a secretive and deeply sinister power group now has the Catholic Church 'in the bag' will only be enhanced by news of a Papal encyclical on the environment and the attending 'intervention' that Pope Francis hopes to make at the UN Climate meeting in Paris this year.
Should it receive the benediction of Pope Francis, the international climate change movement will receive a huge public boost even though the science on the issue of man-made climate change is far from settled. That there are plenty of people for whom the climate change agenda is a gigantic scam that seeks to persuade mankind that he is ultimately responsible for the vicissitudes of nature might not worry Pope Francis, but should he decide to embrace the international climate change dogmas, he will be met with great resistance from many people who will believe that the Catholic Church has exchanged a group of supernatural beliefs for a man-made natural myth.
And Alex Jones is by no means alone in his passionate belief that behind the ecological sustainability agenda hides something deeply tyrannical. You can decide for yourself whether such a threat to freedom exists, but there is no doubt that many believe it. For that reason, it may not be so wise for His Holiness to intervene on the side of those pushing for the climate deal of the century. Why? Because many people will begin to believe that the Catholic Church - from having once been an immovable fortress against the global population controllers envisaged by those who have read UN's Agenda 21 - will emerge as the spiritual NGO with a charismatic leader that will tip the balance in favour of everything She has always stood against.
Popeulation Control and Sustainable Devilopment
In fact, it cannot be underestimated just how extraordinarily divisive such an intervention will be, not just with regard to those who are not members of the Catholic Church, but those who are. Such an intervention supporting a new 'climate deal' would by virtue of his Office sign up the Catholic Church to what many conceive to be an elaborate tax-revenue fraud that impoverishes already impoverished third world nations.
Sensible priests, sensible bishops, sensible laity and even a prominent Cardinal who has publicly rejected much of the climate change agenda on the record, will be deeply antagonised by the political interference of this Pope not just because this is a wholly unnecessary intervention into politics but because it is difficult to distinguish between the major protagonists in the climate change agenda and the population control enthusiasts who are sworn enemies of the Catholic Church. These may henceforth consider a Pope who feels we shouldn't "obsess" about abortion and homosexuality a natural and hugely influential ally of epic, perhaps 'biblical', proportions.
The leading protagonists orchestrating the Culture of Death will quite happily embrace a Catholic Church that has, due to a 'climate emergency' prostituted itself to an inhuman agenda condemned by Francis's predecessors, and worry little should the Supreme Pontiff, from time to time, make a remark condemning abortion and euthanasia because, after all, if a Pope didn't say those things from time to time, you'd be forgiven for wondering whether he was a Pope at all. The grievance caused by any such comments would be transcended by the great cause of their rejoicing - that the Catholic Church had signed up to the falsification of science in the creation of a new, global, naturalist religion in which some form of human sacrifice is considered a 'necessary evil'.
Alex Jones, loved and loathed as he is, is absolutely right to suggest that within the small print of the sustainable development manifesto for what would well emerge as a kind of global policing of environmental practices is completely incompatible with Catholic teaching because the entire philosophy of reducing climate emissions involves artificial contraception, sterilisation, abortion and a host of moral and spiritual evils pioneered by a global elite. One need only do a quick Google search on Agenda 21, the weighty document outlining a global strategy for 'sustainable development' to find reams of information about the kind of tyrannical global eco-government that could be waiting in the wings should nations come to an accord over them.
Is Pope Francis going to become just another 'world leader' who travels the globe in a jet while telling the plebs to reduce their carbon footprint? I do hope not. I do pray not.
From all evil, O Lord, deliver us.
20 comments:
When Papa Francis first began his Papacy and the controversies started to fly, there were various Catholic traditionalists insinuating and even blatantly exclaiming that he was the 'False Prophet' of the Bible. I myself thought that to be a rather 'melodramatic' assessment that really had not much credence. I thought that maybe our 'sins' had run out and the Dear Lord saw fit to chastise us with a not so great Holy Father. But....the more time goes on with this Holy Father, the more I begin to rethink my original assessment. This 'theory' isn't sounding as off the mark as it once did. When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....... I don't know, what the heck is it?
It's the project Gaia, the Earth that breathes, anyway I personally think that the boR is a tragedy for the CC, and a nightmare for me since that 13th of march....May have God mercy on us poor sinners. God bless+
Well put, Bones. My feelings precisely. This can only end badly and what theological/moral weight does a papal e-n-c-y-c-l-i-c-a-l on the environment bind Catholic believers?
This will be in for a penny in for a pound all the way.
This sounds like conspiracy theory on steroids. All the same it is a bad idea seeing that the Successor to Peter is in the business of infallibility and the science here remains shaky.
Bergoglio does not speak of Christ nor of the rich supernatural content inherent in authentic Catholicism. He is part and parcel of the new world order agenda as can be clearly seen by all he says and does. How much information do people need in order to see that he is the false prophet? Denial of reality afflicts many even though the prophecies of Catholic-affirmed saints and visionaries have told us this would be happening in out time. There will be a false ecumenical, humanitarian 'church' juxtaposed against the true Catholic Church, which will be small and underground. Connect the dots.
I have suggested elsewhere that the Holy Father confines hinself to things he knows something about. That does not include Climate Change science.
I have also suggested some subjects he might well write Encyclicals on. Perhaps others could also make some suggestions?
If Pope Francis is really writing an encyclical on global warming, climate change, or whatever they call it next, then I have to agree with Barbara. The premise is moronic and anti-Christian (something I've pointed out to one of my children's teachers).
The Pope's move arises from the modernists' need to seek to completely undermine the teachings contained in 'Humanae Vitae'. That is what this encyclical is about, I believe. 'We must be merciful to the planet'and this calls for us to treat traditional Church teaching as liable to suspension/development depending on current circumstances. A very useful precedent for October's voting.
Would it not be a blessing to have again a Pope we could depend upon to uphold the true Church teachings? To speak often of Christ and of the need of souls for salvation?
If it's one trait the modernists share it's the need to keep meddling - with everything.
Pope Benedict addressed the issue of the stewardship of creation briefly in 'Caritas in Veritate'(50-52). He tied it in to wider considerations of 'human ecology' and it seems to me that a more detailed consideration might form a useful pendant to that encyclical.
It depends how it's presented of course. One ill-considered impromptu remark apart,Pope Francis has been perfectly sound on abortion, openness to life &c. This might be a good opportunity to take the argument to the population control lobby and present the Church's teaching positively instead of,as it often seems to be,defensively.
IF he and his advisers/writers (I doubt he's writing this himself) are foolish enough to engage in scientific arguments, what is said, being neither ex cathedra nor concerning faith and morals, is not infallible or binding on anyone.
I'm far more worried about what may get finessed through the (even less infallible) Synod in the name of 'mercy'.
Pope Frances himself said there are more Christian martyrs now than there were in the first centuries of the Church, but he thinks following in the fake-science footsteps of Algore is more important.
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-there-are-more-christian-martyrs-today-than-e
Pope Paul gave us Humanae Vitae. Pope Frances gives us Humanae Global Warming.
We do not know whether the science is fake or not. There is a general requirement for Christians to be good stewards of the creation but the clergy should not make pronouncements on the science unless they have a role as scientists, as some Jesuits do.
Otherwise, the clergy should stick to their knitting or they will find they have been dropping stitches.
Dear JoeThePimpernel
The sad thing is that while the Catholics don't heed Humanae Vitae, they'll probably follow Humanae Global Warming.
For some reason I tend to lump together both John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev along with environmentalism. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, I remember Gorbachev became a kind of capstone for environmentalism and Gaia. It seems fitting that Pope Francis should follow in the Assisi plant-holding episode and socialist replacement of Christianity, environmentalism.
Of course the symbolic fall of the Berlin Wall was just a ruse. This was when Communism realised that it could spread itself through the medium of war. It spread itself quietly instead, insidiously, almost like a soft-Jihad.
I do like to dip into Mr Jones' website from time to time. I would like to see him sail up the Tiber calling into that loudspeaker of his like he did when the Bilderberg Group held their meeting over here recently. Pope Francis could try using a little Jesuit-reasoning on Alex Jones.
To add conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory, what happened to the 'For the Record' post re Jesuits and Illuminati? I read it on 'cached'.
Perhaps I should buy 'Windswept House' and 'The Jesuits' by Fr Malachi Martin.
It was soon-to-be-canonised Paul Vi who lionised the UN as the sole competent authority for contentious questions
This is the finest aspect of the United Nations Organisation, this is what gives it its most genuinely human guise ; this is the ideal that mankind has dreamed of in its journey through history. We would venture to call it the world’s greatest hope, for it is the reflection of God’s design – a design transcendent and full of love – for the progress of human society on earth, a reflection in which We can see the gospel message, something from heaven come down to earth.
Pope Saint Jphn Paul II agreed: Popes John XXIII and Paul VI had confidence in this important institution as an eloquent and promising sign of our times. And the one who speaks to you now, since the first months of his pontificate, has often expressed the same confidence and conviction nurtured by my predecessors.. My words, which I desire to be a sign of the esteem and regard of the Apostolic See for this institution, join willingly with the voices of all who see in the UN the hope for a better future for the society of men
and Pope Benedict XVI continued the modern papal praxis: To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about 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. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.
So, it is no surprise at all that Pope Francis is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, especially given his love for Paul VI.
As to how one can grant a Messias-Denying Masonic-inspired group of dog-eating baby-killing sex-criminals (is this too churlish?) universal central authority (Hey, I thought Jesus gave Peter that...) which will respect subsidiarity is, like most everything else, beyond me.
When the modern Popes rejected the Triregnum it might have appeared that they were humbler than Jesus but men tend to forget that Jesus let His enemies crown Him King whereas modern Popes would not let their friends crown them, so, it seems to this amateur that refusing the crown was an act of fear.
Modern Popes fear being mocked by those they continue (even if it goes unexercised) to have power over and so they flatter the UN and seem to desire to give away the authority graced unto them by Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus.
Well, MJ does not want the UN to have ANY power over him and he wants Pope Francis to judge for the infallible teaching of Vatican 1 is that Jesus actualises His judgement via the Pope and so when the Pope refuses to judge, he is not being humble, he is being disobedient in his refusal to actualise his authoritative duties.
O, but if the UNH does gain complete control of my life and orders me to wear a Nehru Jacket, I will petition my Bishop for a dispensation from the strictures against suicide.
Yes, that is a pope's fundamental duty; but Pope Francis does not care to do his fundamental duty, and actively opposes the Faith and the moral law. Blessed Michael, defend us in battle . . .
Rorate at:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
has a picture of the Pope holding up a tee-shirt reading "No to fracking!. Oh dear is this a sign of things to come?
In view of the unknown number who have died in fires should we have stopped people warming themselves
with fire?
In view of the unknown number who have died in mines should we have banned the use of coal?
In view of the unknown number who have drowned in reservoirs should we have banned hydroelectric power?
In view of the very small number who have died from nuclear radiation should we have banned nuclear power stations?
Luckily nobody was hurt in the recent collapse of one of those windmills but think of all the birds that are killed by them? Should we not accord rights to birds?
The Church made itself a laughing stock over Galileo (even though his premises for heliocentricity were wrong). Are we going to have the same again?
Hang on! Father Lombardi has since explained that his Holiness's English is not very good word and he thought Fracking was the English for something like fornication. He was keen to explain that His Holiness was not thinking of another word.
Post a Comment