Jorge Mario Bergoglio: A Useful Tool of the World Economic Forum

There was a made-for-television motion picture called “Catholics” that aired on the Columbia Broadcasting System television network in 1974 after it had made its debut in the United Kingdom a year earlier.

The film, which billed itself as a fable and is set in time after a fictional Vatican IV, starred Ramon Antonio Gerardo Estevez (known professionally as Martin Sheen) as an ultra-progressive priest who had been sent by an ultra-progressive pope to an island off of Ireland where a group of “renegade” monks had continued to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, but it began with a shot of Sheen’s character, Father Kinsella, in the lotus position as he received a phone call from the superior of his religious community, a scene that has been omitted in the film’s very edited digital version, which goes by the name of “The Conflict.” Also omitted from the edited version of the film is the scene where Kinsella is told by his superior that the pope was under orders from the world council of churches in The Hague to put down the rebel monks in Ireland as their retention of the “old Mass” was threatening an ecumenical confab among the world’s religions that was to take place in Singapore.

“Catholics” was not a fable, of course. It was a commentary on what was happening at the time even though Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not as well known then as he would become in 1976 when he defied Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s direct command not to ordain men to the priesthood for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1976. More significantly, however, the movie’s script made it clear that the fictional pope was subordinate to the world council of religions and that nothing was more important than ecumenism and liberation theology. (Although irrelevant to the point of this commentary, the fictional abbot of the monastery where the monks are devoted to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is an agnostic who does not believe in the Real Presence and who, out of obedience, submits to the “new Mass” at the end of the film.)

Sound familiar?

Well, it should, of course, because this is a description of what Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI was doing at the time, and the reference to an ecumenical meeting of the world’s religions has its real life fulfillment in the Assisi events of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, although Bergoglio’s “Document on Human Fraternity on 2019, which agreed to with a “moderate” Mohammedan imam, represented the penultimate abandonment of any semblance of Catholicism in favor of a naturalism that underlies the worldview and even the pastoral approach of the false religious sect headquartered behind the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.  

Indeed, Bergoglio’s favorite lavender-friendly globalist” American “cardinals” (Blasé Cupich, Joseph Tobin, Wilton Gregory, and Robert McElroy) termed Abu Dhabi a perfect setting for an upcoming “climate conference” there as it is a “neutral” location, that was noted by “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano in the latest of his endless series of letters and interviews from wherever it is he had been sequestering himself for the past five years:

Valli: The group interview also touches on the theme of the “green” initiative…

Viganò: Yes, inevitably. “For November, before the UN Climate Summit takes place in Dubai, we are organizing a peace meeting with religious leaders in Abu Dhabi. Cardinal Pietro Parolin is coordinating this initiative, which will take place outside the Vatican, in a neutral territory that invites everyone to the meeting.” Because – as we have come to understand – the most important thing is to meet, to walk together, “in a neutral place,” even if the road taken leads to the abyss. And we know well that “neutral” means ostentatiously non-Catholic, in which there is no room for Our Lord: BNo Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Joseph's Seminaryergoglio’s eagerness to appear in all the events that are openly hostile to Christ ought to be enough for us to understand how completely alien, foreign, incompatible, and heterogeneous he is with respect to the role he holds. The only ones to whom he shows no mercy are Catholics, and especially Catholic priests, because they have the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice to the Divine Majesty and to pour out infinite graces on the Church, graces that hinder the plans of the workers of iniquity.  (Archbishop Viganò: World Youth Day has confirmed Bergoglio’s plan to provoke a schism.)

While Father Vigano is entirely correct in his assessment about the reason why Abu Dhabi is called a “neutral” location as there is no room for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of all men and of all nations, he still believes Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter and believes the conciliar presbyterate consists of validly ordained priests and that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination pours out infinite graces in the Catholic Church. Father Vigano has yet to realize or to admit that the conciliar sect is not nor can ever be the Catholic Church, which can never be stained by even a light tarnish of error.

Father Vigano also does not seem to recall that his beloved “Pope Benedict XVI” left no room for Christ the King or His Most Blessed Mother during his 2008 visit to the United States of America (see No Room for Christ the King At Ground Zero, No Room for Christ the King on the South Lawn, No Room for Christ the King at the United Nations, No Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Patrick's Cathedral, and No Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Joseph's Seminary) and that the late “restorer of tradition” was very much committed to globalism and the “green” agenda as is Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Consider, for example, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s words in Caritas et Veritate, June 29, 2009, and in his “World Day of Peace” message for 2010:

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for right. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations. (Caritas in veritate, June 29, 2009.)

This is insanity. Each of the problems that Ratzinger/Benedict lists in his encyclical letter, including the rise of the unbridled marketplace that is defined by the pursuit of profit at all costs and the outsourcing of jobs, two of the many phenomena of the modern world that Ratzinger/Benedict rightly condemns in Caritas in Veritate, is the direct and inexorable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the rise of Judeo-Masonry. The multifaceted and interrelated problems and massive injustices that have arisen as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King cannot be resolved by some kind of utopian "world political authority" that is going to have "teeth" while at the same time respecting the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity enunciated by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, as it respects the right to life and the rights of families and promotes "integral human development."

In all Charity, my friends, the truth of the matter is that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was stark raving mad to have believed that such a One World Government could provide a structure for order and justice in the world, and that is putting the matter mildly and as charitably as is humanly possible. Need one point out that one of the chief goals of Talmudic Judaism has been to create such a One World Government?

Have we lost our minds?

The late Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI clearly called for a "world political authority" to accomplish the following objectives:

1) To find "innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity."

2) "To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result;"

3) "to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace."

4) "to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration."  

The only thing that this "world political authority" would not be empowered to do is to permanently remove plaque from your teeth in one easy step. No such "world political authority" can do any of the things outlined by Ratzinger/Benedict in Caritas in Veritate fourteen years ago.

Some of the late Antipope Ratzinger's reflexive apologists said in 2009 that Number 67 of Caritas in Veritate did not mean to support a "One World Government" because he did not use that precise term. Please tell me, though, what a "world political authority" that would have the powers to do the things listed in Number 67 of Caritas in Veritate would be if not the equivalent of a "one world government?"

It is madness to believe that such a "world political authority" would respect the Natural Law right of subsidiarity and restore legal protection to the preborn and protect the rights of the family while at the same time opposing contraception. No "world political authority" can do any of these things. Men and their nations must convert to the Catholic Faith and to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church in order for there to be any chance at all of seeking to realize the common temporal good that is pursued in a due subordination to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Although repeated many times on this website, it is worth noting once again that the late Dr. George O'Brien's sober description of how the modern economic order came into being:

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, VThere is nothing short of the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith that can help to restore order and justice in matters of politics and economics, both of which must be undertaken with regard to a due subordination to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and in light of man's Last End. Indeed, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, civil government has a positive obligation to aid man in the pursuit of his Last End, something that Ratzinger/Benedict rejects out of hand:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

To quote the late thirty-seventh President of the United States of America, Richard Milhous Nixon, "make no mistake about it," Ratzinger/Benedict's call for a "world political authority" with "teeth," which was in and of itself a violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity as it violates the legitimate sovereignty of nations, which, contrary to Ratzinger/Benedict's support for what amounts to a policy of unrestricted immigration, do indeed have rights in the Natural Law to placed just restrictions on the migration of foreign nationals into their lands. The Catholic Church has always supported the legitimate sovereignty of nations, keeping in mind, of course, that each nation must recognize Christ the King as its own true Sovereign, from Whom no one or no nation may ever declare "independence." There was no such discussion in Caritas in Veritate as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was an enemy of the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus of the very foundation of personal and social order, Catholicism.

While Ratzinger/Benedict did refer to the word "Catholics" once, use the words "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" or "Catholic Faith" once in his new "encyclical" letter, which contains just two gratuitous "cf" (confer) references out of one hundred fifty-nine footnotes to the true popes prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism under Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII. He referred to "Christianity," which, unlike the true popes of the Catholic Church, each of whom used the word "Christianity" to refer solely to the Catholic Faith, in broad, general terms as the "true" religion, stating that it was necessary to "discern" which religions "take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community." This is nothing other than more madness. Ratzinger/Benedict stated that the heresy of "religious freedom" does not mean "religious indifferentism" while at the same time refusing to state clearly and unequivocally that Catholicism is indeed the one and only true religion revealed by God and that Protestantism, which is proximately responsible for the rise of the modern, religiously indifferentist civil state and thus of an economic system founded on false premises, is hateful in the sight of God. Caritas in Veritate nowhere states that it is the duty of the civil state to recognize the true religion and to accord her the favor and the protection of the laws.

No, the late Ratzinger/Benedict, drawing upon Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967, and the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, was content, as a good progenitor of and apologist for conciliarism, to have "Christianity" take a place in the "public square" of ideas, a notion that has been rejected by true pope after true pope in the late-Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries, something that he noted in his 2010 “World Day of Peace” message on “protecting creation” that is almost indistinguishable from many of the points that have been made consistently by his Jacobin/Bolshevik ultra-progressive Modernist successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church's social doctrine came into being in order to claim “citizenship status” for the Christian religion. Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons.

2. In my Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, I noted that integral human development is closely linked to the obligations which flow from man’s relationship with the natural environment. The environment must be seen as God’s gift to all people, and the use we make of it entails a shared responsibility for all humanity, especially the poor and future generations. I also observed that whenever nature, and human beings in particular, are seen merely as products of chance or an evolutionary determinism, our overall sense of responsibility wanes.[3] On the other hand, seeing creation as God’s gift to humanity helps us understand our vocation and worth as human beings. With the Psalmist, we can exclaim with wonder: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your hands, the moon and the stars which you have established; what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Ps 8:4-5). Contemplating the beauty of creation inspires us to recognize the love of the Creator, that Love which “moves the sun and the other stars”.[4]

3. Twenty years ago, Pope John Paul II devoted his Message for the World Day of Peace to the theme: Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation. He emphasized our relationship, as God’s creatures, with the universe all around us. “In our day”, he wrote, “there is a growing awareness that world peace is threatened … also by a lack of due respect for nature”. He added that “ecological awareness, rather than being downplayed, needs to be helped to develop and mature, and find fitting expression in concrete programmes and initiatives”.[5] Previous Popes had spoken of the relationship between human beings and the environment. In 1971, for example, on the eightieth anniversary of Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum, Paul VI pointed out that “by an ill-considered exploitation of nature (man) risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation”. He added that “not only is the material environment becoming a permanent menace – pollution and refuse, new illnesses and absolute destructive capacity – but the human framework is no longer under man’s control, thus creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable. This is a wide-ranging social problem which concerns the entire human family”.[6]

4. Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.

5. It should be evident that the ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other related questions, since it is closely linked to the notion of development itself and our understanding of man in his relationship to others and to the rest of creation. Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world.[8] Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all. Our present crises – be they economic, food-related, environmental or social – are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together. Specifically, they call for a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity, with new rules and forms of engagement, one which focuses confidently and courageously on strategies that actually work, while decisively rejecting those that have failed. Only in this way can the current crisis become an opportunity for discernment and new strategic planning. . . .

10. A sustainable comprehensive management of the environment and the resources of the planet demands that human intelligence be directed to technological and scientific research and its practical applications. The “new solidarity” for which John Paul II called in his Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace [22] and the “global solidarity” for which I myself appealed in my Message for the 2009 World Day of Peace [23] are essential attitudes in shaping our efforts to protect creation through a better internationally-coordinated management of the earth’s resources, particularly today, when there is an increasingly clear link between combatting environmental degradation and promoting an integral human development. These two realities are inseparable, since “the integral development of individuals necessarily entails a joint effort for the development of humanity as a whole”.[24] At present there are a number of scientific developments and innovative approaches which promise to provide satisfactory and balanced solutions to the problem of our relationship to the environment. Encouragement needs to be given, for example, to research into effective ways of exploiting the immense potential of solar energy. Similar attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change. Suitable strategies for rural development centred on small farmers and their families should be explored, as well as the implementation of appropriate policies for the management of forests, for waste disposal and for strengthening the linkage between combatting climate change and overcoming poverty. Ambitious national policies are required, together with a necessary international commitment which will offer important benefits especially in the medium and long term. There is a need, in effect, to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all. The ecological problem must be dealt with not only because of the chilling prospects of environmental degradation on the horizon; the real motivation must be the quest for authentic world-wide solidarity inspired by the values of charity, justice and the common good. For that matter, as I have stated elsewhere, “technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations towards development; it expresses the inner tension that impels him gradually to overcome material limitations. Technology in this sense is a response to God’s command to till and keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror God’s creative love”.[25] (If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation.)

This compares very favorably with the following passages of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Lauato’ Si, May 24, 2015:

Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity. The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of carbon dioxide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which would otherwise help to mitigate climate change. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain. If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Laudato Si, May 24, 2015.)

Bergoglio thus presents junk science as fact while constantly making the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith to be the stuff of fiction and fairy tales believed by old ladies who count the number of Rosaries that they pray each day. He even uses alarmist language in his ecocyclical to speak of a “doomsday” facing the world as a result of the “facts” he accepts so uncritically:

161. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences.

162. Our difficulty in taking up this challenge seriously has much to do with an ethical and cultural decline which has accompanied the deterioration of the environment. Men and women of our postmodern world run the risk of rampant individualism, and many problems of society are connected with today’s self-centred culture of instant gratification. We see this in the crisis of family and social ties and the difficulties of recognizing the other. Parents can be prone to impulsive and wasteful consumption, which then affects their children who find it increasingly difficult to acquire a home of their own and build a family. Furthermore, our inability to think seriously about future generations is linked to our inability to broaden the scope of our present interests and to give consideration to those who remain excluded from development. Let us not only keep the poor of the future in mind, but also today’s poor, whose life on this earth is brief and who cannot keep on waiting. Hence, “in addition to a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity there is also an urgent moral need for a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Laudato Si, May 24, 2015.)

Well, there is a doomsday facing us, certainly. However, the real doomsday that looms over us will be the result of the fact that men and their nations have plunged themselves into the abyss of idolatry and a whole array of what are Mortal Sins in the objective order of things, each of which is celebrated with abandon and protected by cover of the civil law.

Bergoglio’s “doomsday” scenario, however, will empower the statists and moral relativists even more than the voters themselves have empowered them by their ignorance and by permitting themselves to be immersed in an endless array of “bread and circuses” as their legitimate liberties are curbed in the name of “helping the poor” or “saving the earth.” We live at a time when leaders of the Judeo-Masonic civil state seek to curb legitimate liberties and eliminate all, not just some, private property rights while licentiousness is celebrated as a legitimate exercise of human liberty.

Lost in all of this, you see, is the fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s alarmism about the natural environment reflects his thoroughly naturalistic view of problems that exist in this passing, mortal vale of tears that will end at a time appointed by God from all eternity despite a section at the end of the ecocylical that speaks of the Holy Eucharist and the Mother of God (without, of course, any mention of Eucharistic adoration, which Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries believe is “individualistic,” and without any mention of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, no less her Fatima Message or devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart). Bergoglio a Judeo-Masonic naturalist, a man who provides a slight gloss of Christianity to speak of the world’s problems in purely naturalistic terms that tickle the itching ears of men such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

To be sure, as has been noted on this website in the past, there do exist real problems with pollution and the misuse of the world’s resources. These problems exist in large measure, however, because of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been wrought by the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century and cemented in place by the various, interrelated forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism since the Eighteenth Century. The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King has given free rein to man’s fallen nature.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not see this as he sees the Protestant Revolution as having been a necessary “reformation of the Catholic Church that can serve as a foundation for a “spiritual ecumenism” that exists in an atmosphere of “reconciled diversity.”

Moreover, Bergoglio, as a true son of liberalism, whose end result must be totalitarianism over the course of time, seeks to repair social and world problems by structural means rather than exhorting men to convert to the true Faith and for nations to permit themselves to be governed by the Social Reign of Christ the King. Bergoglio really believes in structural reform as the means to change human behavior. This is why he is such a supporter of structural reform in the civil realm and it is why he assembled his Commissars back in 2013. He describes problems, both real and imagined, in this ecocyclical without identifying their root cause, Original Sin, or their chief proximate cause, the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the rise of the religiously indifferent civil state of Modernity that eventually must become the religiously hostile state.

Berogoglio’s proposed draconian “solutions” to environmental problems, both real and imagined, is thus based on the same essential mistake made by Karl Marx when the latter saw some of the real injustices that existed in industrial England in the Nineteenth Century.

Rather than recognize these problems as the result of Original Sin and the rise of a social structure that deified man and his wants, Marx further deified man by denying God’s existence and the necessity to curb man’s excesses by the collective power of the of the civil state. Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat was designed to addressed what he believed to be the root cause of all social injustice, economic inequality, by the forcible confiscation and redistribution of wealth so that all would live in a state of relative economic equality to the benefit of all. Universal tyranny and universal poverty are what results from Marxism in theory and in practice, and despite all of Jorge’s gratuitous denials of being a Marxist, he is influenced by Marxist tenets to the very depths of his apostate being as he has been shaped theologically and politically by Jesuit “liberation theologians” and atheists such as John Schellnhuber, who was one of the presenters at the news conference held in 2015 in advance of the official release of Laudato Si and served on the “Pontifical” Academy for the Sciences despite his believing a fervent advocate of radical “population control” methods, up to and including the depopulation of the earth from seven billion to one billion people. One is who one associates with, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has voluntarily chosen to associate with Marxists no matter how much he denies that he is one.

Laudato Si was thus an alarmist screed that has been used by pro-abortion, pro-perversity statists to urge the “people” to do what the “pope” teaches has to be done to “save the earth.” Its text, which will be analyzed on this site despite my lack of enthusiasm about doing so, prescribes “solutions” that will only bring about the creation of a One World Governing system, if not a One World Government in name, that will one day demand that the lords of conciliarism shut down their false church to worship at its own altar of totalitarianism that will have no room for “coexistence” even with those such as Bergoglio and his allies who helped to bring it into existence.

Men such as Father Carlo Maria Vigano cannot be intellectually honest to criticize “Pope Francis’s” support for the upcoming Abu Dhabi conference on “climate control” and the Argentine Apostate’s belief in evolutionism while ignoring “Pope Benedict’s” support for most, although not all, of the radical environmentalist agenda and the late new theologian’s support for “theistic” evolution, something that Bergoglio himself takes for granted:

Though few might have cast him in advance as a "green pope," Pope Benedict XVI has amassed a striking environmental record, from installing solar panels in the Vatican to calling for ecological conversion. Now the pontiff has also hinted at a possible new look at the undeclared patron saint of Catholic ecology, the late French Jesuit scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Benedict's brief July 24 reference to Teilhard, praising his vision of the entire cosmos as a "living host," can be read on multiple levels -- as part of the pontiff's rapprochement with the Jesuits, or as a further instance of finding something positive to say about thinkers whose works have set off doctrinal alarms, as Benedict previously did with rebel Swiss theologian and former colleague

The potential implications for environmental theology, however, are likely to generate the greatest interest among Teilhard's fans and foes alike -- and more than a half-century after his death in 1955, the daring Jesuit still has plenty of both. Admirers trumpet Teilhard as a pioneer, harmonizing Christianity with the theory of evolution; critics charge that Teilhard's optimistic view of nature flirts with pantheism.

Benedict's comment came during a July 24 vespers service in the Cathedral of Aosta in northern Italy, where the pope took his annual summer vacation July 13-29.

Toward the end of a reflection upon the Letter to the Romans, in which St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship, the pope said, "It's the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

"Let's pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense," the pope said, "to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves."

Though offered only in passing, and doubtless subject to overinterpretation, Benedict's line nevertheless triggered headlines in the Italian press about a possible "rehabilitation" of Teilhard, sometimes referred to as the "Catholic Darwin." That reading seemed especially tempting since, as a consummate theologian, Benedict is aware of the controversy that swirls around Teilhard, and would thus grasp the likely impact of a positive papal reference.

At the very least, the line seemed to offer a blessing for exploration of the late Jesuit's ideas. That impression appeared to be confirmed by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, who said afterward, "By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn't be studied."

Teilhard's most prominent living disciple in Italy, lay theologian Vito Mancuso, told reporters that he was "pleasantly surprised" by Benedict's words and that they have "great importance."

Teilhard, who died in 1955 at the age of 73, was a French Jesuit who studied paleontology and participated in the 1920s-era discovery of "Peking Man" in China, a find that seemed to confirm a gradual development in the human species. Teilhard has also been linked to the 1912 discovery of "Piltdown Man" in England, later exposed as a hoax.

On the basis of his scientific work, Teilhard developed an evolutionary theology asserting that all creation is developing towards an "Omega Point," which he identified with Christ as the Logos, or "Word" of God. In that sense, Teilhard broadened the concept of salvation history to embrace not only individual persons and human culture, but the entire universe. In short order, Teilhard's thought became the obligatory point of departure for any Catholic treatment of the environment.

Yet from the beginning, Teilhard's theology was also viewed with caution by officials both of the Jesuit order and in the Vatican. Among other things, officials worried that his optimistic reading of nature compromised church teaching on original sin. In 1962 -- seven years after his death -- the Vatican's doctrinal office issued a warning that his works "abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine."

In 1981, on the 100th anniversary of Teilhard's birth, speculation erupted about a possible rehabilitation. It was fueled by a letter published in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, by the then-Cardinal Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, who praised the "astonishing resonance of his research, as well as the brilliance of his personality and richness of his thinking." Casaroli asserted that Teilhard had anticipated John Paul II's call to "be not afraid," embracing "culture, civilization and progress."

Responding to ferment created by the letter, the Vatican issued a statement insisting that its 1962 verdict on Teilhard still stands -- to date, Rome's last official pronouncement on Teilhard. (The statement was issued in July 1981, four months before then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, took over as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

Across the years, Benedict has sometimes seemed to be of two minds himself.

In his 1968 work Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger wrote that Eastern Christianity has a deeper appreciation for the "cosmic and metaphysical" dimension of Christianity than the West, but that the West seemed to be recovering that perspective, "especially as a result of stimuli from the work of Teilhard." He argued that Teilhard gave authentic expression to the Christology of St. Paul.

As pope, Benedict has occasionally used language that seems to reflect a Teilhardian touch. In his 2006 Easter homily, the pontiff referred to the theory of evolution, describing the Resurrection as "the greatest 'mutation,' absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development."

Yet Ratzinger's ambivalence about Teilhard is of equally long vintage. In a commentary on the final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), a young Ratzinger complained that Gaudium et Spes, the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," played down the reality of sin because of an overly "French," and specifically "Teilhardian," influence.

Overall, the impression is that Benedict finds much to like about Teilhard's cosmic vision, even if he also worries about interpretations at odds with orthodox faith.

Benedict's July 24 remark on Teilhard builds upon the pope's strong record on the environment, considered by many observers to be the most original feature of his social teaching. Most recently, Benedict devoted a section of his new social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, to a call for deepening what he called "that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God."

In her recent book Ten Commandments for the Environment: Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Out for Creation and Justice, Catholic writer Woodeene Koenig-Bricker described Benedict as "the greenest pope in history," arguing that he has not only made strong environmental statements but also put them into practice.

In that light, one wonders if Benedict's shade of green could eventually allow Teilhard to be named the patron saint of Catholic ecology de jure, as well as de facto. If so, July 24 could be remembered as the first stirring of an "evolutionary leap" in the late Jesuit's reputation and official standing. (http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host)

No true Successor of Saint Peter has ever spoken in such a way. And while there are some who still cling to the myth that the late “Pope Benedict XVI” had substantive disagreements with his successor, the truth remains that both men believed in the same essential evolutionary principles as the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. Once again, there is No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth, noting that Ratzinger/Benedict felt a “pain in his heart” when his successor abrogated Summorum Pontificum in Traditiones Custodes, July 16, 2021, the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

Ratzinger/Benedict explained his belief that biological evolution was probable in an address he gave to Italian priests and presbyters sixteen years ago:

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution. 

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“

His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

Climate change

Benedict is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.

A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued yesterday.

“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said.

“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the Pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.

World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.

The Pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment.

"Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

Last April the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that wilfully damaging the environment is sinful. (Ratzinger and Evolution.)

The earth is not the foundation of human existence. God is the foundation of human existence. Neither the earth or anything on it, including the human beings whose first parents, Adam and Eve, were created specifically and specially by God Himself, exists without having been willed in to existence by God, Who is Omnipotence. The earth was created by God to be the temporal home of His visible creation, including the crowning glory of His creative work, man, who was given the power by Him to use the earth responsible for his good purposes. Man does not exist for the earth. The earth exists to serve man as he seeks to save his immortal soul as a member of the Catholic Church and thus return to his true home, Heaven, in the presence of the Beatific Vision of God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

God spoke specifically about man's right to steward the earth:

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30)

It must be noted furthermore that man can never destroy the earth. Oh, he can do great damage to certain parts of the earth, to be sure. Not even nuclear war, which would kill millions of people and make it difficult for survivors in some parts of the world, would destroy the earth. The earth will end when God chooses to do so by His own power at a time known to Him alone. God created the earth when He spoke the word as is recorded in The Book of Genesis:

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 1-10)

God created the earth. He alone has the power to end its existence. Those who contend that man can destroy the earth demean the omnipotence of God and do not understand Catholic teaching on eschatology.

Listen to the "Voice of the Earth"?

We are not pantheists, thank you. We listen to the voice of God, Who has spoken to us in Divine Revelation, which consists of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which speaks to us of how God created the world. Even honest secular scientists have disproved evolutionism as the prototype of junk science (see Gerard Keane's masterful collection of data on this subject in Creation Rediscovered, TAN Books and Publishers). This is beyond any serious argument at this late date. The facts of true science are all arrayed against evolutionism.

Indeed, the late “Father” Peter Damien Felhner, quoted in Creation Rediscovered, noted the following:

Good arguments can actually be adduced in fact to show that evolution is simply not a scientific hypothesis. It is a dogma providing the context for all scientific endeavors. And it is just this assumption of evolutionism as the universal paradigm that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church. . . . The doctrine of creation, in general and in all its detail, is intimately bound up with the mystery of salvation. That is why the Catholic may not call into question any aspect of the doctrine of creation which in fact the Church believes is related to the mystery of salvation without also doubting that latter mystery.  (Quoted in Creation Rediscovered, p, 192.)

God willed each species of plant and animal into existence, admitting that there have been genetic developments within species. This is something that should fill us awe and should impel us to show others how omnipotent God is, that none of the brilliant colors or varieties of the fishes in the water or the animals that walk the earth could have developed by chance. God, Who is intelligence, order, power and beauty, willed each thing into being. Although science, which has rules and limits of its own, cannot prove empirically the things we accept as articles of Faith, it can disprove propositions that have no rational foundation in scientific fact. True science has disproved evolutionism in a resounding manner, forcing the evolutionists to try to come up with ever-changing variations of their pseudo-religion.

Truth be told, therefore, the propagation of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection in the Nineteenth Century led liberal Protestant Scripture scholars, eager to adopt a pantheistic view of life, to doubt the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and/or to attempt to conform the believer's understanding of Sacred Scripture to the dictates of allegedly "scientific" insights.

A belief in naturalistic evolutionism coincided nicely with a rise in naturalism culturally as a result of Judeo-Masonry and the potpourri (yes, I did watch a lot of the original Jeopardy!, hosted by the late Art Fleming) of anti-Incarnational, naturalistic political ideologies, each of which contends that man is the center of the world and that there are no religious or moral absolutes to govern his daily existence. Marxism is the "synthesis," if you will, of the philosophical evolutionism of Georg Hegel and the biological evolutionism of Charles Darwin. One who believes in biological evolutionism will find it easy to dismiss the Book of Genesis and thus to believe that there is no God and that human society must evolve "socially" just as the human species had evolved biologically.

Believers in strict biological evolutionism have a little problem that they are incapable of answering: why aren't human beings evolving biologically into another species at present? Indeed, the reverse is true. Those who believe that they are descended from monkeys devolve over the course of time into acting like monkeys. A belief in the evolution of the human species leads to a devolution of human behavior to the level of barbarism and bestiality that would offend a lot monkeys, points I covered nineteen years ago in The Fruits of Evolutionism (actually written in 2001, well before I began to examine sedevacantism).

Jorge Mareio Bergoglio explained his own views about the false ideology of evolutionism in Laudato Si, May 24, 2015:

18. The continued acceleration of changes affecting humanity and the planet is coupled today with a more intensified pace of life and work which might be called “rapidification”. Although change is part of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution. Moreover, the goals of this rapid and constant change are not necessarily geared to the common good or to integral and sustainable human development. Change is something desirable, yet it becomes a source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world and to the quality of life of much of humanity. . . .

81. Human beings, even if we postulate a process of evolution, also possess a uniqueness which cannot be fully explained by the evolution of other open systems. Each of us has his or her own personal identity and is capable of entering into dialogue with others and with God himself. Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology. The sheer novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within a material universe presupposes a direct action of God and a particular call to life and to relationship on the part of a “Thou” who addresses himself to another “thou”. The biblical accounts of creation invite us to see each human being as a subject who can never be reduced to the status of an object. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Laudato Si, May 24, 2015.)

“Call to life?”

Hogwash.

Balderdash.

The barbarians of today reject this. Catholics understand, however, that God Himself spoke these words. He has given His permission to us to eat the beats of the earth and the fowl of the air, subduing and ruling over the fishes of the sea, and all living creatures upon the earth. Animals are subordinate to the needs of human beings. This is what one can call real simple.

Why, then, is it so difficult for so many "sophisticated" Catholic intellectuals to believe that it was possible for God, Who suspends the laws of nature of which He is the Author when a miracle is performed, to have created the world exactly as is recorded in The Book of Genesis?

Why is it so difficult for these intellectuals to believe that God, Who is pure Intelligence, to have willed into existence each of the species that exist in the world today exactly as we see them?

Why is it the case that thes intellectuals doubt that God Himself willed into existence all of the laws of nature that He suspends when a miracle is performed in His Holy Name and by His power?

Why is it the case that these intellectuals are so ready to subordinate Divinely Revealed truths to the precepts of a disproved thesis, namely, Darwinism and all of its variants?

The answer to those questions is simple: A loss of Faith.

Yes, the essence of God is simplicity. His truths are simple. Complexity is of the devil. Prideful men, tempted by the devil to believe in their own ability to make complex that which is simple, cannot believe that the Omnipotent, Omniscient God created the world as is recorded in The Book of Genesis, thereby casting doubt on the Divinely inspired nature of the very Scriptures in which God's own Word describes how He created the world. Prideful men must believe that the Origins of the world and of man are must more complex than the simple fact that God spoke the Word and created the component parts of the universe out of nothing.

No Special Creation of man by God, no Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden. No Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden, no necessity of our Redemption by the God-Man on the wood of the Holy Cross. No Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden, no necessity of man to reform his life on a daily basis in cooperation with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on Calvary. No knot of Eve's prideful disobedience, no perfect fiat of Our Lady at the Annunciation to untie that knot. In other words, a great deal of the minimization of sin and sinful behavior that we see among alleged Catholic "intellectuals" is the result of a very labored effort to reaffirm themselves and others in "contemporary" trends that emanate from the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity, including Darwinian evolutionism and all of its biological and philosophical and theological mutations that have wreaked so much havoc in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Evolutionism has helped to give momentum to the errors of Hegelianism, Marxism, Freudianism, Social Darwinism (and its variations in Capitalist theory), Utilitarianism, Relativism, Materialism, Positivism, Modernism, Nihilism, and many other false belief systems. Why should Catholics give any credence to something that has been of such an aid to the enemies of the Faith?

We believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient God, Who specifically created all things and gave each of them a specific nature and ordained that specific laws govern the universe for all eternity. Those "sophisticates" who place into question the Received Teaching of the Church about Origins and Special Creation are in for quite a rude awakening at the moment of their Particular Judgments. They will see that the pure Intelligence Who is God did indeed will all things into existence, creating them out of nothing for His own greater honor and glory.

The acceptance of evolutionism is essential to the climate change fascists as a means to impose their “transformative” policies that are nothing other than Marxism wrapped up in green clothing, something that I pointed out in an article that was published in The Wanderer twenty-nine years ago, “When Green is Red.”

The hysteria over “climate change” has been manufactured to create a perpetual crisis that our statist minders—and their enablers among the leader of the world’s false religions, including the false religion of conciliarism will use to impose “climate change lockdowns” that will make the Wuhan Virus lockdowns seem like so much child’s play even the evidence disproving the hysteria is a vast as the solid documentation about the harm caused by the “vaccines” developed during Operation Warp Speed.

The plandemic of 2020-2023 was all part of the World Economic Forum’s global reset, whose ultimate goal is population reduction in order to “save” the planet, which end in fire from the sky sent by God at a time He has willed for all eternity to occur, the “climate change” agenda is the principal means by which this depopulation will occur.

A scientist who once believe in myth of a climate change “crisis” came to realize that the “crisis” was manufactured by ideologues for their own purposes:

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”

“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.

She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”

She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.

The media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.

“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry.

“This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”

“So, this hysteria is your fault!” I tell her.

“Not really,” she smiles.

“They would have picked up on it anyways.”

But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.

“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star,” Curry recounts.

“Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”

But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research — years with low levels of hurricanes.

“Like a good scientist, I investigated,” says Curry.

She realized that the critics were right.

“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”

Curry was the unusual researcher who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded: “They had a point.”

Then the Climategate scandal taught her that other climate researchers weren’t so open-minded.

Alarmist scientists’ aggressive attempts to hide data suggesting climate change is not a crisis were revealed in leaked emails.

“Ugly things,” says Curry.

“Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”

It made Curry realize that there is a “climate-change industry” set up to reward alarmism.

“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.

Some United Nations officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”

The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change.”

“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding . . . assuming there are dangerous impacts.”

The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about “man-made climate change.”

This is how “manufactured consensus” happens.

Even if a skeptic did get funding, it’s harder to publish because journal editors are alarmists.

“The editor of the journal Science wrote this political rant,” says Curry.

She even said, “The time for debate has ended.”

“What kind of message does that give?” adds Curry.

Then she answers her own question: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.” 

That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex. (Scientist admits the 'overwhelming consensus' on the climate change crisis is 'manufactured'.)

As noted above, depopulation is the principal goal of “climate change,” and one can guarantee that, no matter the nuances that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chooses to employ, his ultimate “apostolic exhortation” on the “synodal path” will endorse, if not actually encourage, contraception and might hint at the “limited” acceptance of surgical baby-killing in some cases, something that I discussed several months ago in         .

A secular author discussed the depopulation agenda in some considerable detail:

About a week ago, the UN Human Rights Czar in Geneva issued a stern warning – “Up to 80 million people will be plunged into hunger if climate targets are not met”.

These are the words of Volker Turk, the head of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. He spoke at a Human Rights event, and highlighted as principal cause for this coming calamity – what else – “climate change”. He said,

“extreme weather events were having a significant negative impact on crops, herds and ecosystems, prompting further concerns about global food availability.”

This is immediately proven by never-before-in-history extreme floods in Vermont, USA, by extreme droughts in Europe and Central – Western USA and by enormous, never-before experienced – forest fires in Canada. More is already announced – extreme Monsoon rains in India, and possibly Bangladesh. What a coincidence. Except, there are no coincidences. Droughts and gigantic flashfloods, in calculated interchange. No coincidences.

Most people of this globe just simply cannot believe how evil some non-people are. The Covid crime and the vaccination genocide was not enough to open their eyes, that their governments cannot be trusted, that they are sold, either by money or by threats, to an extreme evil power, a Depopulation, a Eugenics Cult which is behind it all.

Mr. Turk went on claiming,

“More than 828 million people faced hunger in 2021, and climate change is projected to place up to 80 million more people at risk of hunger by the middle of this century.”

Further contributing to the drama, he added, “Our environment is burning. It’s melting. It’s depleting. It’s drying. It’s dying”; and that these factors will combine to lead humanity towards a “dystopian future” unless urgent and immediate action is taken by environmental policymakers.

And then came the MUST reference to the 2015 (COP) Paris Agreement often referred to as the Paris Climate Accords, which were adopted by 196 parties at the time. COP means “Conference of the Parties”. Adding to the confusion of UN jargons, it refers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose signatories agreed to cap global warming below 2 degrees celsius above the 1850-1900 levels – or to 1.5 degrees celsius if possible. Does anyone understand the language to carry out this easy task?

Such an arrogant statement – humans making the weather with their sheer lifestyles – should already ring a strong bell in a clear-thinking mind of normal humans, but it doesn’t, because our pineal gland for logical thinking and perception of emotions has been gradually dumbed, reduced, even killed in some people with chemicals we eat regularly und imperceptibly in our daily food, chemicals sprayed from the air via chemtrails, “disinfectant” chemicals in the water, the uncountable PCR tests, with absolutely scientifically proven unnecessary sticks up the nose, to the thin separation between nose and brain – and pineal gland — and more.

To dull our sentiments and perception is a long-term goal that “our Masters” have been working on for the last at least hundred years – or longer.

Dulled minds are easier to manipulate. Add to this DARPA’s MK-Ultra and Monarch mind-manipulation program and we know why we are where we are.

Our mental desensitization is the product of a long-term plan, namely precisely the plan that is currently being implemented by the WEF’s Great Reset and the UN Agenda 2030. That just shows that the UN is totally compromised by a “deep state” system, or Diabolical Cult that is way stronger than all our international agencies together.

Incidentally, Bill Gates said once in an interview that even should he “disappear”, the system goes on; it had been prepared for a century or more. You won’t find this reference anymore anywhere on internet. But this is the level of well-planned evil that we are facing NOW – The Great Reset, the UN Agenda 2030, and the all-digitizing 4^th Industrial Revolution. All executed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

They are the willing forefront of an enormously powerful financial behemoth which wants to stay in the dark, both literally and figuratively. Those who work the buttons for the Monster, have been promised “paradise”, or being part of the elite. Enough to buy their soul.

This financial elite system is controlling every sector of production, of food supply, of energy availability, and, indeed, of “climate change”. Yes, man-made climate change, but not the type that is supposedly carbon-based and depending on the human carbon footprint.

We are talking about highly sophisticated Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), that are and have been causing extreme monsoons in Pakistan last year, this year already announced in India and possibly Bangladesh, and wherever an unruly population needs to be reined in, and where basic infrastructure and housing, as well as food crops must be destroyed, in order to create human misery, famine and death – and as a byproduct human obedience.

Would anybody like to pretend that Mr. Human Rights, Mr. Turk, when he speaks at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, does not know the facts? He is betraying the very people he has been mandated to defend and protect.

Massive depopulation, meaning, worldwide genocide, never seen before in human history – currently ongoing – it is Number One of the REAL 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), i.e. UN Agenda 2030. What the 17 SDGs say on the surface is but a smoke screen. The real meaning is reflected in this depiction – in Spanish – from Thereal2030.org – see this.

What Mr. Turk, Human Rights advocate, is saying goes exactly in the opposite direction of Human Rights. Mr. Turk, as the UN defender of Human Rights, the world’s highest Human Rights Officer, instead of protecting humans, he is sending them to death with the “climate change” narrative, with the false pretense that climate change will create and increase massive famine and death, if humanity and their leaders will not adhere to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreements.

This narrative is correct when applied to the since the 1940’s scientifically developed, today highly sophisticated ENMOD technologies. But people do not know, they are on purpose being indoctrinated that the “climate change” which they live is the result of humanities excessive carbon footprint. That is an absolute lie.

Mr. Turk, like all those who order him to help reduce humanity rather than protect humanity, knows very well that humans cannot change the climate by reducing the carbon footprint, because the human carbon footprint has an absolute minimal impact on what is called “global warming” or “climate change”.

Even if humanity would reach a “net zero carbon emission”, the climate would keep changing as it did for the about 4 billion years Mother Earth exists. The earth, like all the planets in the universe are dynamic beings, lives, if you will.

The climate is not influenced by humans, but to more than 97% by the sun, by sun movements. This is attested by any serious scientist – and more and more of those come to the fore to confront the ever-growing climate crime. And these sun-influenced dynamic changes are slow processes, over thousands of years, not noticeable within the extremely short time span of a human life.

Today, the world’s total energy use is still based to about 85% on hydrocarbons, and unless the world economy is made to completely collapse by the infamous slogan of “net zero carbon use”, or there is a sudden breakthrough in converting the endless sun energy by photo synthesis to energy, what the plants do, humanity’s survival depends on hydrocarbons for many more years to come.

Dear Mr. Turk, Defender of Huma Rights – you must know this, in the high position you are honored to hold, don’t you?

Where is your conscience, Mr. Turk, when you ring the alarm bell on innocent, already deprived people with famine, with a rapid increase of famine, and consequently with a rapid increase of death resulting from famine, when YOU know that the only man-made climate change is the one nobody talks about, the one emanating from the man-made ENMOD technologies.

The science of ENMOD, including HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is being weaponized, has been gradually weaponized for years. The science is known since the 1940’s and has been perfected to sophistication since then. It can even trigger earthquakes – has done so already on several occasions – killing thousands of people, leaving the masses under the impression that they became victims of a “natural event”.

ENMOD is weaponizing the climate.

The technologies of environmental modification can be and are applied clandestinely, most people have no clue what happens, when for example western summers are hot and dry like never before, when forests burn – put aflame by paid arsonists – and pollute the air for weeks and over thousands of square kilometers, when sudden, mighty thunderstorms bring flash-floods to overheated and dried out soil to slam down the final stroke to food crop destruction.

The media tells them: Claim it on “climate change” and help reduce your carbon foot print, do not eat meat, do not drive cars, do not fly, stay home, adapt to a modern lockdown. The new 15-minute cities are ideal for you, the commons.

Have you noticed how commercial flying is gradually becoming unaffordable for the common people, while of course, the rich and famous, the all-commanding elite couldn’t care less and keep using all the more their private jets to roam around the globe. Their carbon footprint is immaterial.

They laugh at the commons whose brains, and especially pineal glands, have been dulled by 5G ultra-microwaves, chemtrail-chemicals, water disinfectants – and more – so that the majority still falls for their governments lies that they better follow the rules, the “rules-based order” that replaced constitutional laws, or else.

Has anybody noticed? Nations’ constitutional laws are being ignored. No judge in the world would uphold them against the elite-led order.

Mr. Turk, in your recent Human Rights advocacy speech in Geneva, you did not address the latest craziness and ultimate crime on humanity, the Washington and EU idea to block out the sunlight to cool down the earth. For the sake of saving humanity from “climate change”.

See this and this.

Scientists have warned of devastating effects of climate “geoengineering”. Yet, the Human Rights Council has not brought it up. It is an unspeakable crime on Human Rights – as such weather and climate manipulation would abridge every Human Right.

Can you imagine what that would mean? Of course, instead of having a cooling effect to preserve the earth’s temperature within the 2015 Paris Accord – an absurdity in the first place — it would have a disastrous killer effect. Every life form needs the sun and dies without it.

Blocking out the sunlight would be the ultimate killing machine to reach the Number One SDG drastically reduce the world population. You missed that one, Mr. Human Rights.

How can you sleep at night, Mr. Turk, scaring already desperately poor and undernourished people with more famine, because they and their governments do not follow the 2015 Paris climate rules, so they may face death?

Maybe your pineal gland, Mr. Turk, has also been killed and you have no longer any feelings for Human Rights, reason enough for having been placed into the position of the Human Rights czar.

The UN Human Rights Council’s 53rd session ends on July 14. Thus, there are still a couple of days left to right your wrongs, Mr. Turk and your HR Council colleagues. (Climate Change Crime – Depopulation in the Name of Human Rights. Also see my own
Dear Morons and Idiots in Copenhagen, which was published in 2009.)

These are excellent points from a purely secular viewpoint, but it is important to note that those who explode ideological fables about climate change but who lack the true Faith always seem willing to believe in the Pelagian fable of human self-redemption that convinces mere mortals they can “stop” forces that are of preternatural origin that can only be stopped by prayer, fasting, and almsgiving in preparation for the direct intervention by God at the time He has ordained for all eternity for Him to put an end to the madness of our times.

Writing several days before the coronation of King Charles III, another secular author documented the new king’s constant predictions of climate doomsday during his lifelong apprenticeship as the Prince of Wales:

This Saturday’s coronation of King Charles III marks a significant moment in Britain’s history. No previous constitutional monarch has expressed his political views so openly. Unlike his mother and grandfather, whose opinions, if they had any, remained unknown to the general public, the king’s record-setting seventy years as heir apparent to the British throne saw him define himself as a deeply committed environmentalist.

In 2000, the BBC invited the then-Prince of Wales to give the last of the 2000 Millennium Reith lectures on sustainable development. Charles spoke of his belief in the “bounds of balance, order and harmony in the natural world which sets limits to our ambitions and define the parameters of sustainable development.” He name-checked the founders of the modern environmental movement—Rachel Carson and Fritz Schumacher, authors, respectively, of Silent Spring and Small is Beautiful. He embraced the precautionary principle, warning that the absence of hard scientific evidence of harmful consequences from genetically modified (GM) crops should not be taken as a green light to exceed nature’s limits. 

Instead of looking to science for all the answers, mankind should work with the grain of nature, Charles argued. If a fraction of the investment going into GM technologies was devoted to improving traditional systems of agriculture, “the results would be remarkable,” he declared. He then praised fellow Reith lecturer Vandana Shiva, an environmental campaigner and director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in New Delhi, for condemning large-scale commercial farming “so persuasively and so convincingly.” 

Unfortunately for the people for Sri Lanka, Shiva also convinced the Sri Lankan government to ban GM crops and chemical fertilizers and switch to organic farming. The results were worse than remarkable; they were disastrous. According to Matt Ridley, within months of Sri Lanka going organic, “the volume of tea exports had halved, cutting foreign exchange earnings. Rice yields plummeted leading to an unprecedented requirement to import rice. With the government unable to service its debt, the currency collapsed.” Soon after, the government collapsed, too. Street protests forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee to the Maldives in an air force jet.

In a 2013 speech on protecting rainforests, the prince’s rhetoric became distinctly unroyal, accusing those who questioned the need to act as belonging to “the incorporated society of syndicated skeptics and the International Association of Corporate lobbyists.” This would have come as news to his father and sister. Asked in a 2020 interview whether she discussed farming with her brother, Princess Anne replied, “Yes … occasionally, but rather short,” adding “I don’t even go down the climate change route.”

According to the terms laid down by his son, Prince Philip would also be numbered among the syndicated skeptics and corporate lobbyists. In 2018, Philip wrote to Ian Plimer to congratulate him on his book The Climate Change Delusion. Prompted by Ridley’s 2016 Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture on how carbon dioxide emissions were greening the earth, Prince Philip had lunch in the House of Lords with Ridley and Nigel Lawson. 

Father and son clashed on wind farms. In 2011, a wind farm developer reported that Prince Philip had told him that wind farms were “useless, completely reliant on subsidies, and an absolute disgrace.” In his movie “Harmony—A new way of looking at the world,” Charles speaks of wind energy “working with nature’s freely-given forms” and the need to “end our dependence on fossil fuels.” In the film’s opening sequence, showing a wind turbine in a meadow, Charles intones, “Time is running out.”

Indeed, time has run out for Charles’s forecasts of climate apocalypse. In March 2009, Charles warned that only 100 months remained to avert “irretrievable climate collapse.” That forecast expired in 2017, with no climate collapse. Subsequent dating of doom was pushed further out and became less precise. In 2015, the 100-month deadline was stretched to 35 years. 

A 2021 paper on extreme climate forecasts tabulates 79 predictions of climate-caused catastrophe dating back to the first Earth Day in 1970. Charles has the distinction of being the only individual to be featured three times, with separate predictions of climate apocalypse. As the paper’s co-author David Rode of Carnegie Mellon University comments, alongside Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, Prince Charles has “warned repeatedly of ‘irretrievable ecosystem collapse’ if actions were not taken, repeated the prediction with a new definitive end date. Their predictions have repeatedly been apocalyptic and highly certain . . . and so far, they’ve also been wrong.” (King Charles III Has a Climate Record to Live Down.)

The “doomsday” scenarios of the likes of Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., William Gates, John Kerry, Paul Ehrlich, King Charles and Jorge Mario Bergoglio Bergoglio’s “doomsday” scenario, will empower the statists and moral relativists even more than the voters themselves have empowered them by their ignorance and by permitting themselves to be immersed in an endless array of “bread and circuses” as their legitimate liberties are curbed in the name of “helping the poor” or “saving the earth.” We live at a time when leaders of the Judeo-Masonic civil state seek to curb legitimate liberties and eliminate all, not just some, private property rights while licentiousness is celebrated as a legitimate exercise of human liberty.

Lost in all of this, you see, is the fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s alarmism about the natural environment reflects his thoroughly naturalistic view of problems that exist in this passing, mortal vale of tears that will end at a time appointed by God from all eternity despite a section at the end of the ecocylical that speaks of the Holy Eucharist and the Mother of God (without, of course, any mention of Eucharistic adoration, which Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries believe is “individualistic,” and without any mention of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, no less her Fatima Message or devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart). Bergoglio a Judeo-Masonic naturalist, a man who provides a slight gloss of Christianity to speak of the world’s problems in purely naturalistic terms that tickle the itching ears of men such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

To be sure, as has been noted on this website in the past, there do exist real problems with pollution and the misuse of the world’s resources. These problems exist in large measure, however, because of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been wrought by the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century and cemented in place by the various, interrelated forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism since the Eighteenth Century. The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King has given free rein to man’s fallen nature.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not see this as he sees the Protestant Revolution as having been a necessary “reformation of the Catholic Church that can serve as a foundation for a “spiritual ecumenism” that exists in an atmosphere of “reconciled diversity.”

Moreover, Bergoglio, as a true son of liberalism, whose end result must be totalitarianism over the course of time, seeks to repair social and world problems by structural means rather than exhorting men to convert to the true Faith and for nations to permit themselves to be governed by the Social Reign of Christ the King. Bergoglio really believes in structural reform as the means to change human behavior. This is why he is such a supporter of structural reform in the civil realm, and it is why he assembled his Commissars back in 2013. He describes problems, both real and imagined, without identifying their root cause, Original Sin, or their chief proximate cause, the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the rise of the religiously indifferent civil state of Modernity that eventually must become the religiously hostile state.

Bergoglio’s proposed draconian “solutions” to environmental problems, both real and imagined, is thus based on the same essential mistake made by Karl Marx when the latter saw some of the real injustices that existed in industrial England in the Nineteenth Century.

Rather than recognize these problems as the result of Original Sin and the rise of a social structure that deified man and his wants, Marx further deified man by denying God’s existence and the necessity to curb man’s excesses by the collective power of the of the civil state.

Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat was designed to addressed what he believed to be the root cause of all social injustice, economic inequality, by the forcible confiscation and redistribution of wealth so that all would live in a state of relative economic equality to the benefit of all. Universal tyranny and universal poverty are what results from Marxism in theory and in practice, and despite all of Jorge’s gratuitous denials of being a Marxist, he is influenced by Marxist tenets to the very depths of his apostate being as he has been shaped theologically and politically by Jesuit “liberation theologians” and atheists such as John Schellnhuber, who was one of the presenters at yesterday’s press conference held in advance of the official release of Laudato Si and had served on the “Pontifical” Academy for the Sciences despite his being a fervent advocate of radical “population control” methods, up to and including the depopulation of the earth from seven billion to one billion people. One is who one associates with, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has voluntarily chosen to associate with Marxists no matter how much he denies that he is one.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of theological revolutionaries are climate change alarmists, and it does not bother them one little bit that their screeds and harangues are being used by pro-abortion, pro-perversity statists to urge the “people” to do what the “pope” teaches has to be done to “save the earth.” Like Ratzinger/Benedict before him, Bergoglio prescribes “solutions” that will only bring about the creation of a One World Governing system, if not a One World Government in name, that will one day demand that the lords of conciliarism shut down their false church to worship at its own altar of totalitarianism that will have no room for “coexistence” even with those such as Bergoglio and his allies who helped to bring it into existence. Indeed, Senor Jorge ordered the churches under his false sect’s control to shut down during the plandemic and was adamant in his support for vaccine mandates.

What we must realize as Catholics is that the ultimate cause of all catastrophes in the world is sin, and it is because sin and worldliness are so prevalent today that men can no longer suffer the vagaries of the seasons, which vary from year to year in most places, as they have grown soft by luxury and the conveniences of the modern world.

I mean, I grew up without air conditioning in Queens Village, New York (November 1951 to November 1955), Great Neck, New York (November 1955 to August 1965), and Oyster Bay Cove, New York (August 1965 to January 1973). We had some hot summers during those years, and I remember sweltering in the non-removable plaster body jacket that extended from just below my neck to just above my hips after the spinal fusion surgery I underwent on Wednesday, February 14, 1968, at the Hospital for Special Surgery in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, in June and early July before the cast was sawed off on July 21, 1968. It was hot in that thing.

After having gotten accustomed to air conditioning once I stake out on my own in January of 1973 to pursue my Master’s degree in American Government at the University of Notre Dame, though, I had to get used to not having it when renting the first floor of a converted one family home in Oyster Bay, New York, in 1980-1981, and there have been times in the past few years that our central air conditioning has gone out in the midst of very hot temperatures. As I said at the time to the family, “I lived without air conditioning for the first twenty-one years of my life. Now look at me! We can’t suffer this for our sins?” (We also went through that ten- or fifteen-day span of unusually cold temperatures in Texas in February of 2021 when brownouts were used to save the electric grid from collapsing. That was really penitential.)

Yes, men have grown soft and thus must exaggerate the yearly changes in temperature during the winter and the summer. It gets hotter in some summers than in others, and it gets colder and snowier in some winters than in others. This has nothing to do with man-made climate change. It has everything to do with the power of God over the elements, which He uses to teach us mortals to suffer all things with equanimity, including the extremes of hot and cold weather, for His greater honor and glory and for our own sanctification and salvation as the consecrated slaves of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Nothing we suffer, including the extremes of temperatures and any and all natural or man-made disasters, in this passing, mortal vale of tears is the equal of what our sins caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Cross on Good Friday and that caused His Blessed Mother to suffer in perfect compassion with Him as our Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

Consider the following prophecy of the Venerable Marie-Julie Jahenny about what we are witnessing that it is a on a website of a Catholic who does not understand that the prophecy refers to the counterfeit church of conciliarism which he or she believes to be the Catholic Church:

Our Lord “I see them embrace the religion of a merry heart, without thinking about Me, on the Church, of their baptism and all that is good for the Christian soul ... by manifesting these signs to My people (i.e., the warnings and chastisements), I want to bring back My people, before the punishment, because I love them. I see eagerly entering this guilty, sacrilegious, infamous, in a word, a similar (religion) to that of Mahomet (sp. Muhammad) (As found at: Prophecy of Marie Julie-Jahenny.)

This is pretty clear, at least it is to those, through absolutely no merits of their own, who have been sent the graces of Our Lady to see it for what it is.

How this end?

Well, we travel by Faith as we pray fervently to Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary to remain steadfast in the truth no matter what it may cost us in human terms.

The sacrifices, including our voluntary acts of reparation and penance for own many sins, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will plant the seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and thus the fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Request for the collegial consecration of Russia by a true pope and all the world’s true bishops.

We know the end of the story, do we not?

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end.

What are so afraid?

Why do we prefer to live in fear with Our Lady and her Most Chaste Spouse, our Good Saint Joseph, so near?