In Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home, the new environmental encyclical by Pope Francis, the Holy Father speaks in part to the need for good stewardship of the earth, as well as the current generations obligation to the next:
“The notion of the common good also extends to future generations. The global economic crises have made painfully obvious the detrimental effects of disregarding our common destiny, which cannot exclude those who come after us. We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity. Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit. Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us…”(LS 159)
This concept of “Intergenerational solidarity”, the responsibility to preserve what has been received for those not yet born, immediately struck me, but not in the manner it was intended.
Looking back at the last fifty years since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council we are sadly able to see the damage wrought by two generations of churchmen who have often demonstrated little respect for the gift they received, let alone their obligation to future generations.
To more clearly make my point, I would ask you to read the above paragraph from Laudato Si again, this time with the emphasis taken off of the planet, and instead focused on the Church, and her saving mission to promulgate the faith :
“The notion of the common good also extends to future generations. The
global economicpost-conciliar ecclesial crises have made painfully obvious the detrimental effects of disregarding our common destiny, which cannot exclude those who come after us…Once we start to think about the kind ofworldfaith we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that theworldfaith is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since theworldfaith has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way…Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since theworldfaith we have received also belongs to those who will follow us…”
In the United States alone we can objectively declare that the preservation of the faith, taking what was received and then sharing it with those who follow, has been the real environmental disaster of the last fifty years. As Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) reports:
- Weekly Mass attendance has declined from 55% in 1965 to 24% in 2014
- Total priests in the U.S. decreased from 58,632 in 1965 to 38,275 in 2014
- While parish affiliated Catholics increased during this time from 46.3m to 66.6m…
- Those indetifying as former Catholic adults has increased from 7.5m in 1975 to 28.9m in 2014
- Finally, a 2008 CARA survey found that over 40 percent of Catholics questioned view the Eucharist as only a symbol of Jesus
Let me be clear: none of this is meant to dismiss what the Holy Father has presented to the Church in Laudato Si. While I have read excerpts from it, listened to analysis of it, and read others opinions about it, I have yet to read the entire encyclical myself.
My point is simply this: before the U.S. bishops rush off to find new and exciting ways to incorporate this Eco-encyclical into the life of the Church, possibly they could first look to recover what the Vatican II generation failed to preserve. Is it asking too much for our bishops to be good stewards of the Church first? Shouldn’t the priority be more on saving souls and less on saving trees?
The simple fact is this: a generation of the faithful (bishops, priests and laity) were given a faith that filled pews, rectories, convents and confessionals. A generation of Catholics were given a liturgy that had organically developed over 2000 years, largely unchanged for 1400 years in the Roman Rite, one replete with an aura of the sacred and beautiful sanctuaries that lifted our eyes and our hearts heavenward. This same generation was given Catholic schools that were Catholic, staffed by religious sisters and brothers, who taught the Catholic faith to Catholic children.
As the CARA data confirms, the ecclesial environmental degradation of the last fifty years has been staggering. Truth, beauty and goodness were replaced with ambiguity, minimalism and indifferentism. We have become, as Dietrich Von Hildebrand declared decades ago, a “devastated vineyard.”
Before we look to heal “Mother Earth”, shouldn’t we first look to heal Holy Mother Church?
I would like to share this from a Church Father, St. John of Damascus from his work Orthodox Faith, Book Two regarding how God intends for us to use the earth and everything in it:
“In these last the divine command implanted the power to grow, to absorb
nourishment, and to seed, that is, to reproduce their kind. Then at
the Creator’s command there came forth every sort of animal: creeping
things, and wild beasts, and cattle. Everything was for the suitable
use of man. Of the animals, some were for food, such as deer, sheep,
gazelles, and the like; some for work, such as camels, oxen, horses,
asses, and the like; still others for diversion, such as monkeys and
such birds as magpies, parrots, and the like. Of the plants and herbs,
some were fruit-bearing and some edible, and some, such as the rose and
the like, were fragrant and flowering and were given us for our
enjoyment; and still others were given us for curing of diseases. For
there is no animal or plant in which the Creator has not put some virtue
that is of use for the needs of man. He knew all things before they
were made and He saw that man in his freedom would fall and be given
over to corruption; yet for man’s suitable use He made all the things
that are in the sky and on the earth and in the water.” Page 228,
Chapter 10, The Fount of Knowledge, The Orthodox Faith, Book Two.
Saint John of Damascus was born in 645 AD and died 749 AD.
St. John Damascene, pray for us.
I am reading his “book” now. It could have been written yesterday and is full of Godly wisdom.
Listen, I’ll take you seriously once you’ve actually read the document in full and not just the quotes from around the web.
Agreed. I thought the document quite inspiring and, if you want me to find something wrong in it I will find, but that’s not the way we are supposed to approach an encyclical.
“Shouldn’t the priority be more on saving souls and less on saving trees?”
Well said!!!
These were my thoughts exactly even when the idea first emerged for an ‘encyclical on the environment’. Sooooo many other problems the Church has to deal with, why the environment? So strange.
Totally bizarre. I was stunned at Pope Fred Mertz actually saying that.
Except for the re-affirmation of the Catholic teaching on abortion and gender identity, “Laudation Si” is the “Environmental Encyclical.” It is the environmental part that has many people upset. Treating man-made climate change as a scientific fact and then. encouraging forced, international political cooperation as a remedy to this “urgent problem,” is quite disturbing. Man-made climate change is just not proven, despite what the Left says, while they eagerly are ready to institute their statist remedies with the Holy Father’s blessing.
Amen to all you have written.
Doesn’t seem to make sense to talk about the earth as a gift to be protected for future generations when we are actively killing the future generations and sterilizing the poor around the world in a genocidal manner.
Recall Pope Francis’ 2013 trip to Rio and the interview he gave to Brazilian journalist, Patricia Zorzan who asked him why he did not speak to the youth about abortion or about same-sex marriage, when, the day before his visit the Brazilian Institute of Public Opinion and Statistics released results of a survey which revealed that 82% of Catholics ages 16 to 29 believe they should be able to use the morning-after pill, 62% oppose the criminalization of abortion, and 56% support “gay” marriage.
His answer: “It wasn’t necessary to speak of it, but rather the positive things that open up the path to young people. Isn’t that right! Besides, young people know perfectly well what the Church’s position is.”
Isn’t it obvious that Pope Francis’s priority is not to condemn the practice of abortion (or the destruction of the traditional family), which he had a wonderful opportunity to do in his visit to Brazil, but merely claim “the youth know well what the Church teaches” when that is, either not true or the majority of them dissent completely against it.
Sheesh. Does he smoke pot? Hey…another good subject for an encyclical!
Brilliantly stated Brian. The proper response to Pope Francis for telling us how to care for earthly concerns is “physician heal thyself” which Jesus said to those who didn’t believe in Him. And I would say from the way Pope Francis has behaved he doesn’t believe in Him either. Let us pray that Pope Francis has a revelation on what his proper focus should be and to begin to fix the “ecclesial environmental degradation of the last fifty years.”
You think you should be telling the Pope what to do? Obviously you are nor a true Catholic, because he is infallible. Except when he disagrees with your right wing beliefs. They obviously trump your faith.
The Pope is infallible on only on faith and morals. This means, in your way of judging things, that you are not a true Catholic.
Perhaps, although I vaguely remember that from Catholic school in the 1960s. B it they were not actually factual with us. And yes I am not a Catholic at all. I don’t believe in fantasies and don’t support pedophiles.
Catholics don’t support pedophiles either. Lose the ignorant vitriol or go find another place to troll.
Keep that fantasy alive, along with all the other ones you believe.
Steve, why do you comment like this. Are we flowers that wilt at the first heat. Catholics need to hear the outside world so they can be ready to defend the faith. My wife and I are becoming Catholic and after sparing with atheists and hateful people all of my years I have a ready answer to just about anything. It is not good enough to just know the “Catholic beliefs” if Catholics are to bring in completely new people in the CC.
I go on to the most secular web sites and comment and have fun answering the vile comments by the heathen; most of them have never heard a good rebuttal to their lack of knowledge of all things Christian.
It is your website, but just a suggestion.
Catholic web sites should evangelize the Catholic Faith, which is expected.
They should not be tools of evangelization for others, who take up valuable space and post error.
By trolls, you mean the unbelievers? Shouldn’t we do as Jesus did and be among the tax collectors and sinners; telling them the truth about Jesus. Most only know the lies and not the truth.
Many unbelievers read the Catholic sites. EWTN has the right idea in their Sirius radio site, which reaches out to the people that are Catholic and the non-believers.
We must be “inconvenienced” if we are to do the will of God.
Trolls (on Catholic sites) are those who wish to evangelize their own anti-Catholic beliefs.
They have their OWN specific AGENDA.
(And they usually tend to distract from the article/topic discussion intended by the site owner.)
That’s right Mike. But I have learned through years of talking to people about the love and mercy of Christ that the un-believers that protest the loudest are actually the ones that are the closest to becoming believers. Everyone knows in their heart that there is a God, but bringing them to accept God is one of the missions that Jesus gave to all of us.
I personally know because I was one of those atheists that hated the Christians, but I was strangely drawn to Christian organizations on the tube. I was finally brought to belief by the Lord working through a friend of mine, who would not give up on me. He just kept telling me the Truth, no matter what I said.
We can not just go to Mass, we must reach out to all people.
Based upon your post, you were not converted based upon short (length-sensitive) posts. Different media sources have different effects.
Trolls have an agenda. And they will try to draw those unsure away from the Faith possibly with some success.
Even Jesus did not convert all the Jews.
Jesus also warned us not to cast our pearls before swine. Context. Context.
So when Jesus told the sinners and tax collectors to believe in the one the Father has sent, Jesus was breaking his own advice?
Is that what people outside the CC are, swine?
So here’s the context. The discussion was about trolls, that well known internet phenomenon of individuals who intentionally disrupt. You might want to look at Matthew 7: 6 and the surrounding verses, and then consult a good commentary. You are extrapolating beyond the conversation. Our Lord certainly counseled the disciples and us about sharing the joy of the Gospel. There are some classes of people whose characters are swinish, and who will not hear the Good News.
Yes, Paul was like that; he wouldn’t listen to the Good News until God, Christ called him, but all the while he was killing Christians he was hearing the good news in bits and pieces. So the preaching to Paul (swine) was not wasted, and eventually bore fruit. Can you picture Paul killing Christians, killing them, not posting on the internet, and hearing their dying testimony about Jesus?
You make a mighty assumption about St. Paul, a man zealous for God his whole life.
Your question bolsters my point, actually. Internet trolls, like everyone on the worldwide web, have a 30,000 foot view. They can dive bomb without fear for their skin or having their preconceived notions exposed to their faces.
Apparently you find no context or use for the Lord’s words about swine…
I have spent the majority of my life engaged in evangelization of some kind or another. I have no problem engaging with non-Catholics. I do have a problem with incivility.
I had two options: delete and ban, or warn in no uncertain terms. I believe in allowing everyone to have their say, but within reasonable bounds. I don’t want the comment boxes here to become a hostile place, or a place where those who oppose our faith can attack it.
So that’s your answer. If Richard Dawkins showed up in this comment box and could be courteous to others and respectful of their beliefs, I’d welcome him to stay.
Not only should we provide the pope our opinion, we must do that. It is our obligations as Catholics. By the way how do you stand on Humane Vitae?
Well they never taught us that in Catholic School. Must be something new. Did you feel the same about Benedict?
I have nothing but praise and admiration for Pope Benedict.
So it’s one right wing popes you support. The ones that actually agree with Jesus, like caring for the poor, nor do much. I didn’t know Catholics could pick and choose like that.
Yes, it is their obligation.
It seems to me that one may be a sadly mistaken Catholic if he/she believes a pope is infallible in all writings, pronouncements, and so on. Rather pathetic, especially because we have history to inform us.
CCC: ” 907 In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty
to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church,
and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful,
with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”
This is also included in the Code of Canon Law #212.3.
Agree. The Church is a mess and needs structure. It has none.
Not if there are no souls to save, because the earth is devastated. The church brought these issues on themselves. They continued the backwards treatment of women. Over 90% of Catholic women in America user birth control at some point in their lives, and you tell them they are sinners. Think what has done to push people away from the church. You stand up with right wing, racist, evangelical Christians, who historically hated Catholics, just because of their stance on abortion. Worst of all, you protected pedophiles, and moved them around to different parishes, providing new victims. That is why you’re numbers have depleted. I walked out of the church, never to return, when i saw the abuse the church protected. That is not what Jesus would do.
You wouldn’t know the first thing about what Jesus would do.
Well I’m not a true believer, but I know he never said a word against gays, but said a lot about feeding the poor. Something most Catholics seem to forget.
I agree with you, mjw1952. Jesus Christ loves all gays (He also died for them), but hates their sins. Just like all the straight men and women, He loves them but hates their sins. He wants all gays and lesbians to go to heaven. And He will find a way that they repent of their sins, just like all of us. (Yes, I believe in these “fantasies”.)
Good for you. I assume it’s the same for those who have premarital sex, cheat on their spouses or are divorced. Jesus DID talk about fornicators. Too bad for all those divorced Catholics out there. But they’ll have plenty of company down there.
Btw, he never concerned himself with gays, never called them sinners. I thought Catholics followed Jesus, not the old testament. If not, watch out for that shrimp.
Sorry, but he concerned himself with sinners, and with a proper sense of sexuality/marriage. His description of marriage was one man and one woman. The Old Testament speaks of our Lord, and Jesus Himself quoted the Old Testament in reference to Himself. The Catholic Scriptures go from Genesis to Revelation.
Mjm is just an angry feminist. She needs to be Wiccan or Unitarian.
Take that old acid somewhere else.
She is just an angry feminist.
The amount of people getting mad and accusing people who disagree with the Pope here is indicative of a larger problem. It’s actually a type of heresy where people think everything the Pope says is authoritative, if not infallible. An encyclical is no more authoritative than any other document from any other member of the magisterium. The Pope can and does err in his teaching, he is only infallible when under certain strict circumstances. We are Catholics, we believe in the primacy of the seat of Peter, but that doesn’t mean we worship the Pope. We need to remember that.
“Before we look to heal “Mother Earth”, shouldn’t we first look to heal Holy Mother Church?”
I’m afraid the fracturing of Holy Mother Church is exemplified by the new revelation from this encyclical that not only has the Church, for the last fifty years, taught indifferentism and relativism regarding the faith, through its respect for and acceptance of the heresies of Protestantism, the schismatics, and the false religions of those who worship many different gods, but now raises up the false religion of scientism to one of respect and dignity and we are commanded to embrace and adopt it with as much fervor as Pope Francis evidently does.
Yes, scientism is a religion. It has its precepts of faith, sin and absolution, its proselytes and evangelists, its demagogues and hypocrites, its infidels and apostates, its sacrifice and ritual, its Puritans and killjoys, its censorship and angles, its control and taxation, its contradictions and irrationality, its wealth and power, and its confession and salvation.
Adding the religion of scientism to the list isn’t surprising, considering the fact that the Church has also taught, for the last fifty years, that She is no longer the only path to salvation but is simply a subset of all of the various religions and all are paths of grace and salvation.
There is no such thing as scientism. There are scientific tests that can be performed, and duplicated to learn facts. Religion is in the business of faith, not science.
No, scientism is a real phenomenon. It’s an almost religious bias toward scientific theory above and beyond what is empirical, where it overreaches into the theological and philosophical:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
One man’s opinion of scientists.
May I suggest you read this article and then come back for discussion?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
And simply google “global warming as religion and not science” for other’s commentary on the subject?
I agree. The Pope needs to insure that Catholics are catechised, that it is not two or more separate churches (liberal, conservative etc). I am very disappointed that the Pope is focusing on leftist pet projects. I guess there will be an encyclical on the evil of English ivy and cell tower emissions next, and also the wonders of a vegan lifestyle
Which leftist pet projects are you talking about? Abortion? We know where he stands on that. Gay marriage? Opposed to that too. Saving the planet? Right, that’s leftist. I know many conservatives who are concerned, and many evangelicals are too.
My partial list:
1.Climate change which has not been proven by scientists who use the scientific method
2.His support by default when answering about gays and same sex marriage
3. His attacks on capitalism
All are current leftist, socialist issues.
I can find studies that support climate change based on cycles of weather over the past 500 years and then scientists who support climate change based on cow farts and other cow made of man made emissions. Chicken poop runoff is also in the mix.
If he continues to follow the leftist agenda, I expect an encyclical on the benefits of veganism soon.
I agree with all of you when you say, “why focus on trees and not on salvation of souls (or our Mother Church instead of Mother Earth)?” But I have a different take on this.
This encyclical could just be part of a grander plan (there are others who share this view): Protect and conserve nature (Earth), do not tamper with nature. Next step would be, human beings, marriage and family are part of nature; do not tamper with them either (he already started with abortion). I am actually impressed by how he has called the attention of liberals and atheists though this encyclical. It would have been entirely different had the Pope written something like, “Protect and heal our Mother, the Catholic Church.” If the liberals and atheists saw this, they would immediately throw this to the trash. But now, however, the Holy Father has their attention. I’m excited to hear what he would say to them (and to us) next.
I agree about your statistics how Mass attendance and priestly vocations have gone down, etc. I believe that Pope Francis is concerned about these, too. I’m reading his biography, and I’m so impressed how during his leadership of the Jesuits in Argentina in the 1970’s and 80’s, the Jesuit vocations surged up by the hundreds (when he stepped down and was exiled in the 90’s the vocations went very low again). Now that he gained more maturity and wisdom he’s applying the “technique” (I don’t like to call it “technique”, I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding him) to the whole Church.
Besides, perhaps some (or many) of those not attending Mass anymore could be Catholics (or former Catholics) who have become materialistic or liberal who have lost their taste for things of God, and are now earning a lot of wealth by exploiting nature. Now this encyclical has caught their attention. Now the Pope can tell them more things. Or you yourselves, beloved Americans, can tell them more things, now that they are listening.
I know I could be wrong about this “grander plan”. And if so, I would still stick with Pope Francis, simply because he is the elected Pope in a valid and legitimate manner. God is behind this. This Pope might not be to our liking or preferences, thus this requires faith. I learned this from the Gospel itself. In John chapter 6 Jesus Christ said, “You have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood so that you will have eternal life…” There were many good Jews following Our Lord then, perhaps some were even learned about the law and the prophets. And they were all shocked. “Who is this newcomer anyway?” they must have thought, “Moses and the prophets never said this kind of things.” And they all left Him, except the 12 apostles. So He turned to the Twelve and asked, “do you want to leave, too?” St. Peter and the apostles replied, “Lord, to where do we go? You have words of eternal life.” They actually meant, “Lord, we don’t understand either. But we believe you.” So, when something happens that seems to go against our understanding, it might be a challenge for us to have the faith of the Apostles.
I sure hope you are right; it’s an interesting theory you propose, and seemingly plausible. However, all of the other confusing things Francis has done and said appear to weigh in another direction, which a commentator on another web site characterized as “1970’s Jesuit theology,” dominated by indifferentism, “the historical Jesus”, sexual politics and “liberation theology.” The result has been the reduction of every formerly great Jesuit university in the U.S. to mere secularist shadows of their founders’ vision of truly Catholic education, where dissent from every fundamental teaching of the Church is taught as truth, and faithful Catholics have all but disappeared from faculty positions. So, an increase of Jesuit vocations in the 1970s and 1980s in Argentina may or may not have been a reflection of anything good in terms of preserving and passing on the eternal truths of the Catholic faith; I don’t know if the order suffered from the same theological disease in that country as it did then, and for the most part continues to suffer now, in the USA.
In any event, I am no sedevacantist; Francis is still our Pope, and I pray for him every day, awaiting his leadership on issues such as the daily martyrdom of Christians in the Middle East, the continuing imposition of sodomite “marriage” on the Church and the faithful by secularist governments, and the near-total collapse of the Church in Europe and North America.
Who in the church is forced to marry a same sex partner? I missed that.
That wasn’t what I said, now, was it? At least one priest in Canada is being criminally prosecuted for preaching the truth that God ordained marriage as between a man and a woman. That day most likely is not far off in the USA, either, especially if the Supreme Court caves in to the political pressure and re-writes the Constitution to impose such “marriage” on the entire country–at which point, according to the oral argument before the Court of the Solicitor General of the United States, the Church will likely face removal of its tax exemption status unless it agrees to perform sodomite “marriages.” In any event, that certainly amounts to the imposition of that particular modern fantasy on the Church.
Who is the priest in Canada? And quit lying, No religious person in America has aver been told what to preach. See, that’s the beauty of the first amendment. Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. You can believe whatever you want, and so can I. But you can’t force your beliefs (you must be Jewish because Sodom was in the old testament, but OK,) on me. To claim it’s going to happen, well Christian do have a persecution complex. But you’re Jewish, right?
Friend, I am having a hard time telling whether you are being serious or sarcastic, or both. Or, maybe you just don’t pay attention to what’s going on in the Christian world. But before addressing your question, I must ask: Whatever gives you the idea that the Old Testament only applies to Jewish people? Last time I checked, the OT was still in every Christian Bible, and neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever said it doesn’t apply any more. In fact, Jesus told his disciples that he came not to abolish the law (of the OT), but to fulfill it. Plus, if you’ve actually read the New Testament, you should know that Jesus and the Apostles quoted or referred to the OT again and again. I don’t know exactly how many times, but it was a lot; look it up. The OT was, after all, the only Scripture that existed during Jesus’ lifetime.
As for your question, actually there have been several cases in Canada
(as well as in Britain and Sweden, but we’ll not go into those now) in
which Christians (including one priest) have been investigated and
prosecuted under Canada’s “hate crime law” over the past few years. I
said the priest was currently being prosecuted, but that was incorrect, and I apologize for getting that wrong, as it actually happened about seven years ago. You have a computer and access to the Internet, so you can go do the research yourself. But since I’m a Catholic who believes in Christian charity, I’ll give you a head start with these three URL’s:
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/canadian-human-rights-commissions-bear-down-on-christian-clergymen/
http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/canadian-supreme-court-ruling-has-implications-for-christian-witness
Now, the good news is, the prosecution of Fr. de Valk (see the first story)
was ultimately dismissed by a Canadian judge. But the law itself was,
as you’ll see in the third article, upheld a couple of years ago by the
Canadian Supreme Court with some minor exceptions. I believe Mr.
Boisson, the evangelical pastor referenced in the second story, also
eventually won his appeal of the ruling by the Alberta Human Rights
Tribunal which initially heard his case. However, both Fr. deValk and
Mr. Boisson spent tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves from
these charges–when all they did was speak the truth of Sacred
Scripture in public. And the Canadian version of our Constitution does contain a provision supposedly guaranteeing both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
You also said this: “And quit lying, No religious person in America has [e]ver been told what to preach.”
Well, once again, that wasn’t what I said. It hasn’t happened here, yet, although the Mayor of the city of Houston, TX came pretty close when she subpoenaed the sermons of every Christian pastor in town a year or so ago, as part of a lawsuit involving Houston’s “hate crime” ordinance. You can look that one up, too. But what I said was that I think it’s not far off, and I stand by that prediction. Your faith in the First Amendment is quite touching, but remember, it has to be enforced to be worth anything, and right now I’d say your view of it might not be shared by the owner of that pizza shop in Indianapolis whose business was almost shut down when she said she wouldn’t cater a homosexual “marriage”, and the baker up in the Pacific Northwest who has been ordered to pay a fine of $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for another homosexual “marriage”, both of whom were acting on their religious beliefs supposedly protected by that same First Amendment. Look them up.
And your last little snarky remark, that Christians “have a persecution complex”, would be funny if it weren’t for the recently dead bodies of thousands of our Christian brethren over in the Middle East. Go look that one up, too, please. And if we Christians anticipate being persecuted for our faith, maybe it’s because Jesus warned us so many times in the Gospels that it will happen. Most of us tend to believe what he tells us.
Well I’m not sure about the laws in Canada, since I’m an American. But i do believe in free speech so i would not applet that in the US. However, there is a difference between speech and discrimination. Do you think companies should be able to refuse service to African Americans? Jews? Catholics? I do believe that was outlawed by the civil rights act. As the pizza owner, i know many of you religious types donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to her, she’s doing just fine for being aself-righteous good Christian. As to the old testament, you are again picking and choosing. Watch or for those poly blend shirts. And that lobster bisque you like so much. Oh, and as far as traditional marriage goes, how many wives did Solomon have? I believe it was hundreds. Jesus never said a word about homosexuals. But he sure did talk about those fornicators. Premarital sex anyone? Going to hell. Not to mention all those divorced Catholics who are also going down there too. So when Catholics stop being big old hypocrites then I will take them seriously.
I’d like to add that I don’t know why gays want to give money to people who are so hateful. I’d prefer to share my money with people who support me.
I can see you have strong faith. As for the other things, we’ll pray and hope for the best. We’ll see in time. Thanks for the reply.
Amen!
I don’t think that caring for our faith and caring for the world are mutually exclusive things. Having a care for the goods which God has given, life in all forms, is essentially. Catholic.
They certainly should not be. But that doesn’t mean that for many, they are not treated as such.
God created the Universe, just so Earth could hold his people. Along with the earth, God created all the minerals, oxygen, carbon etc. Didn’t God mean for us to use what He has given us? There is no shortage of anything on this Earth except love for each other and love for God. The poor countries don’t need for the modern countries to become poor also; they need to be like the modern countries. The Popes Marxist teaching is beyond the pale.
While there certainly are some things in “Laudato Si” that include Catholic teaching,
I have issues with the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT approach – authority for worldwide law making, worldwide policing and enforcement, and worldwide taxation.
“LAUDATO SI”
http://w2.vatican.va/content/f…
# 164 “…… Interdependence obliges us to think of one world with a common plan….”
# 164 ” ……. A global consensus is essential for confronting the deeper problems …….”
# 167 ” …… its accords have been poorly implemented, due to the lack of suitable mechanisms for oversight, periodic review and penalties in cases of non-compliance.”
# 167 …… Convention on international trade in en-dangered species of wild fauna and flora, which includes on-site visits for verifying effective compliance…. ”
# 170 ……. Some strategies for lowering pollutant gas emissions call for the internationalization of environmental costs, …..”
#173 ……. “Enforceable international agreements are urgently needed…..”
# 173″…….”Global regulatory norms are needed to impose obligations……”
# 175……” it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions.”
# 175……” for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority.”
” Before Saving Mother Earth, Let’s First Save Holy Mother Church ” – this is getting priorities straight, and the Pope’s main job, along with His Cardinals and Bishops.
1) Preaching the Gospel (Bible),
2) teaching the Doctrine of the Faith (CCC) in entirety,
3) righting public Scandals =
SAVING SOULS.
Holy Mother Church does not need to be saved. Period.
We need to be saved, and it is only Holy Mother Church that can do it, wedded as She is to Her eternal spouse, Jesus Christ. We are saved when we submit ourselves in holy obedience to Her teaching, the same teaching that has always saved. So submit already.
What we are witnessing is not a failure of Holy Mother Church. Such a thing is impossible. God makes things durable. He knows well what He is dealing with. We can totally trust is prudence in all matters. What we are witnessing is a fracturing of the apostate usurpers of Church office, property, and tradition. Our crisis is one of Simony. The offices of the Church are being traded in for worldly wealth and influence, at fire sale prices to boot.
Don’t be amazed to see people seeming to float in the air of Rome. Simon Magus has returned and will very soon find St. Peter’s pray is still more than effective enough to bring the high flying Simon crashing to the ground again.
Not time for panic. Total dedication to doing the duties of our station in life, yes, but not panic. Never panic. There could well be another 1000 years to go. I find this thought sobering. One’s perspective changes when one considers these events from a wider aperture.