Laudate Deum, catastrophism replaces Catholic faith
The Apostolic Exhortation published on 4 October converts the thesis of man-made global warming into dogma just as the Pope questions fundamental truths of the Church.
At times, you really wish that the authors will come out and announce that this is all just a joke.. Because if it is not a joke, it is indeed dramatic to see that the Pope, Christ's vicar on earth, at the same time as he is questioning the truths of faith and the 'definitive' pronouncements of his predecessors, he is instead imposing as dogma beliefs about the human causes of global warming, insulting scientists and Catholics who do not acquiesce.
This is what we - bewildered - are witnessing these days, with the epicentre on 4 October. On the one hand, the start of the Synod, organised and conducted to overturn the foundations of the Church as we have known it for two thousand years; on the other hand, the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum, the second instalment of the encyclical Laudato Si', in which the climate-change 'religion' is dogmatically defined.
This document is, to say the least, embarrassing: hastily and superficially written by people who copy-paste platitudinous clichés about global warming; full of allegedly scientific claims without any supporting evidence other than “it is evident” and “it cannot be denied”. Melting glaciers, abnormal heat, "droughts and floods, drying up of lakes and populations swept away by tidal waves or floods", rising sea levels, disappearing plant and animal species: "The world we live in is crumbling". Not only: "millions of people are losing their jobs due to the various consequences of climate change" (where and why?), while instead, miraculously, the energy transition is "capable of generating countless jobs in various sectors" (which, where, and when?).
All obvious things, says the Pope, were it not for those who persist in denying the climate catastrophe caused by "unbridled human intervention in nature over the last two centuries": "I am forced to make these clarifications, which may seem obvious", says Pope Francis, "because of certain contemptuous and unreasonable opinions that I find even within the Catholic Church" (No 14).
Last 25 March, the Daily Compass organised a seminar in Milan attended by a number of scientists and experts: it is worth revisiting those talks (including the introduction by Monsignor Giampaolo Crepaldi, who explains well what a faith-based approach to the environment is) to understand what science really is compared to the drivel one reads in this Exhortation: greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide used as synonyms (No 11); carbon dioxide judged as a pollutant, when it is essential for life; the Covid-19 pandemic still attributed to mankind's erroneous relationship with "other living beings and the environment" (No 19) when by now it should be clear even to blockheads that it is a virus that "escaped" from a laboratory (the Pope should have this explained to him by his advisor Jeffrey Sachs, who has said it in all manner of ways); the exaltation of "green" energy for which we must act quickly and the simultaneous condemnation of the technology necessary for the coveted transition (No 22). And this is just to give a few examples.
Nor should other passages be overlooked: when he wants to give a positive example "of man's interaction with the environment", Pope Francis never mentions the work of Benedictine monks or even the approach of "his" Saint Francis, but only that of "indigenous cultures", continuing to spread a myth - that of the harmony between man and the environment typical of primitive societies - that is only in the imagination of 1970s veterans.
Furthermore, in the part dedicated to international politics, Pope Francis, concluding his fragmented and confused thoughts in support of a more effective 'bottom-up' multilateralism, seems to support the need for an international organisation capable of imposing drastic decisions for the reduction of carbon dioxide, and able to bend "the circumstantial interests of a few countries or companies" (Nos. 59 and 60), as early as the next climate conference to be held in Dubai.
This is also served by "the actions of so-called 'radicalised' groups", i.e. those who block roads preventing people from going to work or to the doctor or wherever they need to go, or who deface monuments or attack those who oppose this violent ideology. The Pope resolutely sides with them because “they fill a void in society as a whole, which should exert healthy pressure, because it is up to every family to realise that the future of their children is at stake” (No 58). In short, the end justifies the means and the fault is ours for not doing the same. These are words of disconcerting gravity, unbelievable to find them in a magisterial document of the Catholic Church.
And lastly, the incitement of hatred against western man, the only one really responsible for the climate catastrophe and for the attempt to hinder the ecological transition, who has become rich at the expense of those who have been plunged into poverty. We are faced with political-economic analyses that border on the ridiculous.
Unfortunately, however, they give the green light to those who are trying to impose global totalitarianism by riding the wave of climate catastrophe, and they give a helping hand to those who want to silence those serious and honest scientists who continue to tell the truth.
For the umpteenth time on Earth Day, apocalyptic alarm bells have been rung from Biden to Pope Francis if drastic and urgent measures are not taken. These are predictions that, as usual, will turn out to be wrong and any commitments made based on them will prove unrealistic. In the meantime, the high-stakes pressure serves only to justify ever-heavier state intervention in the economy and to restrict citizens' freedoms.
In a landmark ruling, the Paris Administrative Court has condemned the French state for ecological and environmental damage, as it is not meeting its commitments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. A fundamental step in the process of imposing a new ecological dictatorship.
The IPCC, the UN entity that is concerned with studying climate change, has reached the conclusion that lockdown is good for the planet because it is reducing CO2 emissions. Indeed, what we went through during the worst months of the pandemic should be seen as a small contribution towards reaching the goals set by the Paris accords. Thus, in order to reach them we would have to resort to an almost permanent lockdown. And so they have finally achieved a perfect fusion between catastrophism caused by climate change and that of the pandemic. They are both forms of millenniarism which say that economic development is a (collective) sin and its expiation requires the paralysis of the economy and the reduction of growth.