Pope Francis has driven Catholic doctrine into the quagmire of political environmentalism with his encyclical Laudato Si’. Popes’ have discussed the earth’s environment in the past and, in fact, the title of his papal letter comes from the Canticle of Creatures by St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis is said to “greatly influence the pope.” But do false prophets also influence him?
I don’t question the Holy Father’s sincerity in this letter. And I believe that he may be forgiven [forgive one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13)] for his flawed writing about environmental science and misunderstanding the damaging political implications promoted by the zealous followers of the religion of environmentalism [religion with unbridled tongue is worthless. (Jas. 1:26)]. I suspect advisors have misled the Pope; using his influence to advance their agenda [many are teaching things they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:11)].
My comments are based on a Special Report on this subject published in NC Catholics,”the magazine of the Catholic Church in eastern North Carolina (www.NCCatholics.org).
One suspicion I have about the encyclical is the use of words, for example, sustainable. This misused term by American academics, environmentalists and business people suggests that our current lifestyle is not sustainable unless we change our ways—and buy certain government approved products. Certainly, the Holy See does not believe in this materialistic concept.
Another questionable suggestion in the letter is that we “acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face”—that being “the current ecological crisis confronting the world.” Humanity is assumed to cause this crisis because of our emphasis on “technology and power,” according to the papacy.
But these statements cannot be supported by evidence. This political theory is driven by radical groups such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reputable climate scientists suggest other theories to explain climate changes caused by natural occurring events; such as cloud cover. In moral matters the Pope may be assumed supreme, but he should not allow the false prophets to use him for their political purposes.
Misleading models used by researchers supported by the UN IPCC have been used exclusively to spread undue alarms about the presumed catastrophic weather events political opportunists predict for the future. Surely, even the Pope, with direct connections to the heavens, cannot predict the weather years’ in advance.
Pope Francis uses the illegitimate terms biodiversity and ecology. Behold, these, too, are words misused by those of false faith. Ecology once meant the scientific study of the relationships between earthly organisms and their environment, but it has been co-opted by the environmental Pharisees to mean the politics of the detrimental effects of modern man on the environment [the Pharisees and lawyers rejected God’s purpose for them. (Luke 7:30)].
His Holiness acknowledges that “We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it.” Yet, he does not admit the reality that great improvements in our lives and our environment from the works of man have benefited mankind immeasurably. Western civilizations have vastly improved the nutrition, health, longevity and riches of all their people—so much so that they can afford to spend untold time and treasure to help the “less fortunate” in Third World countries [bless the Lord and forget not all his benefits (Ps. 103:2)].
Thus, it is true that because men of good will have prudently used the earth’s God-given resources [the earth he has given to mankind. (Ps. 115:16)] the Pope’s teaching “that care for the things of the earth is necessarily bound together with our care of one another” has, in fact, come to pass. Praise the Lord your God for the good land (Deut. 8:10).
Pray also that Pope Francis denies prophets who teach lies (Isa. 9:15)– those that alarm us with “crisis” and an “adverse impact on the humanity by humanity itself”– and teach the truth. [Whom will he teach knowledge? (Isa. 28:9)] Would that he give praise to man for his great contributions to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Otherwise words might be mistaken as a noisy gong or clanging cymbal (1 Cor. 13:1).
God saw that what he had made was good (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25); it was very good (Gen.1:31); it is good for us to be here (Matt. 17:4; Mark 9:5).