Getting the Straight Truth From Mullarkey

by
How do I get up out of this?

How do I get up out of this?

Who is Maureen Mullarkey and why is she so wonderful?  Her piece today on the Pope’s Global Warming Manifesto says everything that no one is permitted to even conceive.  Why not?  It’s only true.

Subversion of Christianity by the spirit of the age has been a hazard down the centuries. The significance of “Laudato Si” lies beyond its stated concern for the climate. Discount obfuscating religious language. The encyclical lays ground to legitimize global government and makes the church an instrument of propaganda—a herald for the upcoming United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference in Paris.

and then this…

Propelled by the cult of feeling and Golden Age nostalgia—enshrined in the myth of indigenous peoples as peaceable ecologists—that elusive something picked up a tincture of Teilhardian gnosticism as it grew. It bursts on us now as “Laudato Si,” a malignant jumble of dubious science, policy prescriptions, doomsday rhetoric, and what students of Wordsworthian poetics call, in Keats’ derisive phrase, “the egotistical sublime.”

This theme of the Pope’s ego is key.  Mullarkey has broached it before, and was entirely renounced by the editor of FirstThings.  A more telling indicator of her witness in the age of FrancisMercy you won’t find.

After briskly putting the sinister global warming movement to rest, she writes:

Enter Jorge Bergolio. Informed objection to the pope’s roster of pending disasters is widely available—but also, at this point, moot. Reducing greenhouse gases has just been deemed a religious obligation. What should concern us now is the ecclesial climate that yielded this extravagant rant.

Despite whatever leverage or compromise made up that notorious Abdication Conclave, isn’t Francis the elected man of the cardinals?  Such is our infected Church, yes?

There is nothing to admire in its assault on market economies, technological progress, and—worse—on rationality itself. Bergolio, whom we know now as Pope Francis, is a limited man. His grasp of economics is straitjacketed by the Peronist culture in which he was raised. “Laudato Si” descends to garish, left-wing boilerplate. The pope is neither a public intellectual, theologian, nor a man of science. Yet he impersonates all three.

The encyclical tells us much about the man who delivers it. Straightaway, it certifies the depth and span of this pope’s megalomania. A breathtaking strut into absolutism, it is addressed not simply to Catholics but, like the “Communist Manifesto,” to the whole world. Tout le monde.

Mullarkey has all the Pope’s numbers.  He’s the Left’s man, the kind of tool Obama would want to head Catholic Charities.  He’s clever and he’s going to accomplish what he was appointed to do, but he’s not actually able to be pope.  That requires a unique set of skills, among them an informed Faith.

His placement in that supreme seat as an agent of mischief is producing a sort of mania.  His job description says to point definitively toward what’s right, but his agenda is to do everything wrong.  That would twist anyone’s thinking.  I wonder if his mind was always this way.

It’s difficult to find clear simple rationales when you’re bent on so much trouble.  Luther was similar.

Bergolio’s resentment of First World prosperity is of a piece with his simplistic understanding of the “financial interests” and “financial resources” he condemns. He nurses a Luddite yen to roll back the Industrial Revolution for a fantasy of pre-industrial harmony between man and a virginal Mother Earth. He demonizes the very means that have raised millions out of poverty, and that remain crucial in continuing to raise standards of living among the poor.

Those aren’t the only good things he demonizes.  He also resents and attacks the pious faithful and those who get in his radical way.

Take no comfort from “Laudato Si’s” restatements of the Catholic Church’s traditional positions on the sanctity of life, the primacy of the family, and rejection of abortion. In this context, orthodoxy and pious expression serve a rancid purpose. They are a Trojan horse, a vehicle for insinuating surrender to pseudo-science and the eco-fascism that requires it.

Promiscuous papal embrace of the climate-change narrative includes a chilling call for the creation of global overseers to manage the Progressive dream: abolition of fossil fuels. The twentieth century gave us stark lessons in the applications of compulsory benevolence. The “global regulatory frameworks” the pope hankers for will, without scruple, crush orthodoxy when it suits.

Or might Bergolio welcome that? His appointment of Hans Schellnhuber to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences raises the question. Schellnhuber is a zealous promoter of the theory of man-made climate change and advocate of population control. He has lobbied for an Earth Constitution, a Global Council, and establishment of a Planetary Court, a transnational legal body with enforcement powers on environmental and population issues. In short, Schellnhuber is the Vatican’s advance man for bureaucratic tyranny on a global scale. It is a telling appointment.

A man of counter-faith at the helm of the Church.  What could be more destructive?

 

 

 

 

FrancisChurch: Dr. Woo’s Trinity is Way Too Earthy

by
Serene Dr. Woo in her Dear Leader suit with a very mopey Jesus and Mary in the corner

Serene Dr. Woo in her Dear Leader suit with very mopey Jesus and Mary in the corner

Dr. Carolyn Woo, former Notre Dame Business School Dean and now head of Federal bureaucratic agency, Catholic Relief Services, was supposed to have been integral to the Pope’s enormous Global Warming Manifesto.

She was present and spoke at it’s unfortunate release.

Pope Francis asks us a very simple question in his encyclical: “What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?”

Surely this question resonates with almost everyone. It resonates with me as a mother and as someone who draws on business as a partner to eliminate poverty and as an educator of business practitioners. It is from the perspective of business that I speak today.

Business school academics know all about business, yes?  College historians know history, and most economists know how people live and work too.

Pope Francis poses other questions: “What is the purpose of our life in this world? Why are we here? What is the goal of our work and all our efforts?” Those answer are akin to the mission and vision statements businesses formulate to define themselves, to gain legitimacy from society, commitment from employees, and support from customers.

How is it that the Vicar of Christ himself must pose these questions?   Are not the answers to these questions the essence of the Christian Faith?  According to Dr. Woo, the ‘answers’ are the visions and missions statements that businesses worldwide have yet to create.

So, the most profound truths of our existence will be determined by corporate boards, then screened for compliance with the UN-FrancisChurch officials, I expect.  Is this Catholicism or some descending cage?

As businesses strive to find those answers, they should realize that the message of this encyclical to the business world is a profoundly hopeful one. It sees the potential of business as a force for good whose actions can serve to mitigate and stop the cumulative, compounding, catastrophic effects of climate change driven by human actions.

Did you see that?  Five ‘C’ words.  It’s not science but it’s scary.

One of the principal themes in this encyclical is that all life on this planet is bound together via three fundamental and intertwined relationships: with God, our neighbors and the earth. When one of these relationships is damaged, then the others are, too. So there is a connection between how we treat the planet and how we treat the poor, our neighbors. As Pope Francis puts it, we do not have two separate crises, social and economic, but “one complex crisis which is both social and environmental.”

This contrived trinity of God, earth, and mankind is not some principle.  It’s just a trap, a net to bind men so tightly with the Prince of this World that piety and virtue become extinct.  High can we fly to Heaven while our planetary rulers move to subjugate us to the Earth?

Don’t let them throw a rope around Christ’s Church and pull it down.

 

 

Why Must Common Sense Come From Outside FrancisChurch?

by
What's up with Pope Francis?

What’s up with Pope Francis?

At the Boston Globe there is some rare good sense injected into the frightening Laudato si’ flood of wastewater.

Watch your back, Pope Francis, you have no idea what conniving charlatans thou art lying down with when you go full green.

Your new flock will not settle for being junior partners. Unlike the African missions or the Home for Little Wanderers, they won’t be satisfied with the take from a mere second collection. An inconvenient truth is that greedy greens grab all the gelt.

Remember the Shrine of Solyndra.

These sticky-fingered moonbats even have their own pontiff, Pope Albert I, patron saint of masseuses.

The climate-change grifters are preaching an updated version of that old time religion. It’s still fire and brimstone — a London newspaper headline Friday declared, “Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because of climate change, warns expert.”

There is one major difference between these climate-change “experts” and most of the traditional clergy. The secular prophets of doom really do believe that global warming is destroying the planet, just as 40 years ago they thundered with equal fervor about the global cooling that was leading to a new Ice Age.

It’s still about salvation, saving one’s soul. Repent. Get thee to a recycling center. Separate thy trash. As in any new religion, the greens require devils to keep the credulous faithful in line. Instead of Satan and Lucifer, the fallen angels are now known as the Koch Brothers, and George W. Bush.

Like Thomas Dolby, this new pope appears blinded by science, or should I say “settled science.”

I don’t think the Pope is blinded by science.  I think he’s blinded by vice; the vices of anger, jealousy and pride.  He’s in a maniacal rush to accomplish everything he and his notorious compadres have been grumbling about for the past thirty years.  That’s why he’s in league with Catholic enemies.  As far as the Church goes, our Pope Francis plays to lose.

To stay au courant, Pope Francis this week issued an encyclical, airily denouncing the “harmful habits of consumption.” This goes over big with billionaires who travel in their own private jets.

The pope is particularly appalled by “the increasing use and power of air conditioning,” which you would think theologians would consider a blessing in this age of heat waves. Oddly, though, no mention of the pressing need for more bicycle lanes in Brookline.

The last time the Vatican moved this quickly on a scientific issue was back in 1633, when Galileo was placed under house arrest for life for the “heresy” of suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun, rather than vice versa.

Now, almost 400 years after that scientific breakthrough, the Vatican serves up this papal hot air.

“Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and in methods of production and consumption …”

After Joe Stalin once read a similarly windy sermon by an earlier pope, he famously asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?”

The question now is, “How many solar panels does the Pope have?” Wind turbines? Priuses?

On the bright side, the Pope says there’s no problem that a new global “authority” couldn’t solve, once we create “one world with a common plan.”

Sounds very feasible. Is Bernard Cardinal Law in the house? The pope is going to need someone to run his New World Order, and the devout Bernie is warming up in the bullpen — tanned, rested and ready to go.

I’m sure Pope Francis is basking in his early rave reviews. Of course his new politically correct friends are ignoring the rest of the encyclical, which is full of what Joe Kennedy II used to call “Catholic mumbo jumbo.”

The media are particularly ecstatic with the thought that his global warming polemics will “make for awkward reading among some Catholic Republicans,” as the Guardian put it.

Apparently the pope’s denunciations of abortion and sex-change operations won’t “make for awkward reading” among Catholic Democrats.

And that is the whole point.  The new bridled faux-catholic press is climbing and slogging through the Pope’s endless manifesto looking for catholic ideas.  Most of these soldiers are in progress.  They say, “I’m halfway, but I have this and this to say.”  But the media machine will simply ignore what they find.

The FrancisChurch agenda grafts leftist statism onto to a shadow Catholicism in order to ride the Church like a horse into the promised land of tyranny.  It’s Liberation Theology for the new millennium: UN climate governance.  The planet is a holy ecosystem and everything is Earth, is weather, is people, is poverty, is faith.  All religions are one in God’s tender mercy, just ask oh Francis, the One.  LoveLikeFrancis.com!

This is the crowning achievement of a consolidated world media: a manufactured cult, and not the Catholic Faith.

After all, Chris Dodd et al. never seem to let the odd divorce or their support for partial-birth abortion stop them from piously taking communion at, say, Ted Kennedy’s funeral.

One thing Pope Francis and the tree huggers can agree on — the need of all the faithful to ride the bus — a bus without AC, needless to say.

“Many specialists,” the encyclical notes, “agree on the need to give priority to public transportation.”

See you at Park Street, Your Holiness!

Somehow Mr. Carr is not the same easy sell you might find say, at the National Catholic Register.

I was disappointed today to see the great and brave Fr. Hunwicke echo the infuriating sentiment of Robert George, by calling for a docile ‘willingness to be taught’ by Francis regardless of what the hell he’s clearly peddling.

I would like to make a preliminary comment. I think it becomes us all to read this Letter intending to be taught by it and by the one who sits in the Chair of Peter and wears the Fisherman’s Ring. It is not infallible, but then, neither am I. We rightly condemn those who rubbished Humanae vitae when it was published; and those who do not accept the binding authority of Ordinatio sacerdotalis. We stand under our own condemnation if we treat this Encyclical with that same disrespect with which the Wolves malevolently treat the Church’s Magisterium. (This is still true, even though it is obvious that this Encyclical does not intend to impose dogma or definitively to settle a particular and precise moral question, as each of those two documents did.)

If we find in this or in any other Encyclical some particular teaching which we genuinely have trouble understanding or appropriating, then, in my view, the most fitting response is simply not to talk about that particular aspect of its teaching until we do find that we can speak positively about it.

I know that Father’s words come with a great deal of Catholic history including numerous papal encyclicals behind them, but really, enough is enough.  Does he see no difference between those who ‘rubbished Humanae Vitae’ and critics of this liberal high tax, big government, pro-poverty, pro-slavery, anti-Church capitulation to evil?

How much Hellish misery, Church dysfunction, and heresy must we endure before we can address the problem?  Docility before error is no virtue.  The problems in the world come from a failure of the Church.  That starts and ends with Peter.  His failure is ours too since we overlook it and we carry it forward.  It’s rooted in faithlessness, I’m sorry, I mean excess pastoralism.

We simply must separate the truth from the lies all the way to the top.  It’s no animus toward the man or the office, just the lies.  It’s love.  The Church’s true problems must be confronted, and gentleness won’t due.

How many more generations must be laid waste?