Author Topic: Chris Ferrara: The good and the bad in LS. (Read 1382 times)

Nishant · « **on:** June 18, 2015, 01:57:46 AM »

One wonders whether a docuмent not specifically addressed to the universal Church but instead directed to "all people of good will" can be considered to have the same force as a Papal Encyclical in the traditional sense of the word? Anyway, a good analysis by Chris Ferrara. Some excerpts,

Quote

First the bad news: in LS Francis has committed himself to the “climate change” narrative and its related dubious science. There is simply no question of this. In Chapter 1, and thematically throughout its 184 pages of main text, LS accepts as established fact that human activity is primarily responsible for, among other things:

a rise in atmospheric greenhouse gasses;
global warming;
the melting of the polar ice caps, glaciers and other masses of ice;
the release of methane gas from decomposing matter uncovered by the melting of ice packs;
a rise in ocean levels;
an increase in ocean acidity;
the decline of the barrier reefs and their life forms;
a threat to the existence of plankton;
species extinction and the destruction of biodiversity, including not only mammals, but fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles, “innumerable varieties of microorganisms” and mangrove trees (Cf. ¶¶ 20-50) ...

But now the good news, which is not inconsiderable:

Condemnations of abortion (albeit in an ecological context of disregard for nature in a “throwaway” culture as opposed to the murder of an innocent) (¶¶ 117, 123).
Rejection of gender theory (¶155).
Defense of the family as “the primary cell of society” (¶ 157).
Criticism of ecological movements that are devoted to the preservation of the environment but “do not apply the same principles to human life” (¶136).
No trace of the population control agenda, but on the contrary a rejection of Malthusianism: “demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and solidaristic development” (¶ 50).
Rejection of a radical environmentalism that sees man as “only a threat to compromise the worldwide ecosystem, who should reduce his presence on the planet” (¶ 61).
Recognition of the right to private property in keeping with prior social teaching, which has never accepted the notion of an "absolute" property right (¶ 93).
Nods to distributism, including the desirability of small producers (¶¶ 94, 129).
Perfectly legitimate criticisms of hyper-capitalism and globalization, boundless technocracy, orgiastic consumerism, and the disastrous impact on social life of the digital culture.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-leaked-encyclical-the-good-and-the-bad

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2015, 10:20:16 AM »

When one mixes good and bad, the net overall assessment is bad.

That's how the devil works ... by mixing good and bad. Otherwise it would be too obvious and not have its intended effect.

JPaul · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2015, 01:09:39 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

When one mixes good and bad, the net overall assessment is bad.

That's how the devil works ... by mixing good and bad. Otherwise it would be too obvious and not have its intended effect.

Quite true, and why should we be interested in what some term as "good" when it is coming from a heretic.

Ferrara and the indult crowd practicing their gatekeeper function for the conciliarists.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2015, 01:30:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

When one mixes good and bad, the net overall assessment is bad.

That's how the devil works ... by mixing good and bad. Otherwise it would be too obvious and not have its intended effect.

I was wondering about this too!

The Pope just issued an encyclical and the good and the bad are evenly distributed. Atheists in the past surely didn't like what Pope Leo XIII or Pope Pius X had to say but at least it was because they did not believe and were completely outside the Catholic Church.

A few years back, before the U.S. passed it's Health Care law, I was still attending the novus ordo and was completely unaware of the existence of the TLM and anything related to the Catholic Church pre-Vatican II. But, during the "homily" and during the "Prayers of the Faithful" where the pant suit wearing music director would list ten prayers (which at least four of them asking that governments do more) and also asking that government "reform medicine" I knew then that if a government Health Care Law would pass that it would fund abortion. The U.S. government is pro-abortion (that includes the Republicans who give lip service to the pro-life view). So I knew that a government led health care law would include forcing Catholic organizations to provide funding for birth control. I knew that beyond any shadow of the doubt and it puzzled me as to why the novus ordites didn't realize what they were asking for? So, a couple years later, and now the law is passed, Catholic organizations are now spending a lot of money hiring laws to get an exception to the birth control mandate.

Well, and what follows ties in to what's going on here. Pope Francis in this encyclical is calling for governments of the world to restrict economic activity based on "climate change" but at least the Pope is giving lip service ahead of time against abortion and embryonic stem cell research. If the governments of the world are emboldened by this encyclical, they will restrict economic activity, and they will increase taxation and they will still be providing funding for all the forces of death. I think I would be naive to imagine that Pope Francis does not know this.

Having said that, why is this Pope so freely trying to join arm in arm with these governmental forces of death?

All of the above ideas, i.e., government provided health care and concern for poor and even government oversite of employers are not bad ideas if they were enacted in a Catholic monarchy with all Royal family members and government officers being Catholics (of the pre-Vatican II variety). A Catholic republic enacting the same policies with leaders who are devout in their Catholic faith would be acceptable and even desirable. We do not have the privilege of a Catholic country in the world today. But all of us here know that in the secular world, discarding human life and sneering at Catholic principles is par for the course.

Alexandria · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2015, 02:01:48 PM »

Not to worry. Father Z assures us that there is some good in it. All is well. :rolleyes:

Damage control and white washers I have developed zero tolerance for. :smash-pc:

BTNYC · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2015, 02:23:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

When one mixes good and bad, the net overall assessment is bad.

That's how the devil works ... by mixing good and bad. Otherwise it would be too obvious and not have its intended effect.

Great point.

I'm flummoxed by Catholics (our own Poche among them) who find cause for celebration in the fact that a purpoted papal encyclical contains some good in it. Talk about damning with faint praise.

Quote from: Nishant

One wonders whether a docuмent not specifically addressed to the universal Church but instead directed to "all people of good will" can be considered to have the same force as a Papal Encyclical in the traditional sense of the word?

Indeed. One wonders much the same thing about an ecuмenical council that claimed not to do what ecuмenical councils do (define dogmas and condemn errors) and claimed not to be what an ecuмentical council by very nature is (a function of the Extraordinary Magisterium).

BTNYC · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2015, 02:38:12 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Not to worry. Father Z assures us that there is some good in it. All is well. :rolleyes:

Damage control and white washers I have developed zero tolerance for. :smash-pc:

Mark my words. He will turn this into some kind of merchandise to shill (t-shirts and mugs that say "We'll follow Laudato Si When you Follow Humanae Vitae" or something similar) before the Summer is over.

Has anyone seen his banner petitioning Francis to name John Paul II a Doctor of the Church in 2016? I ought to thank him for that; I haven't laughed so hard in years.

Quick bit of googling revealed his "petition" for this insane cause. It's the cherry on this comedy sundae: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/04/petition-to-pope-francis-declare-st-john-paul-ii-doctor-of-the-church/

He posted it on April 12 (11 days later than it should have been posted, IMO).

"Hashtags" too!

#JP2ForDoctor
#Lolek4Doctor

:roll-laugh1:

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2015, 03:17:31 PM »

Isn't Christopher Ferrara the man who counsels Catholics to completely avoid EWTN because it has some good and some bad in it?

I'd say the same should apply to Bergoglio: Completely avoid him.

clare · « **Reply #8 on:** June 22, 2015, 09:39:22 AM »

Here is a pretty good bit:

Quote

105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means “an increase of ‘progress’ itself”, an advance in “security, usefulness, welfare and vigour; …an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture”,[83] as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The fact is that “contemporary man has not been trained to use power well”,[84] because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.