In Chapter 3, Francis gets into what he considers to be the root causes of the “crises” he has listed.
He fires his first shot at technology itself, admitting that it has its uses but needs a “sound ethics” or otherwise it gives “those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources… an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity”. There he goes again – attacking the more advanced societies. And besides, whose “sound ethics” would he like the world to follow? No need to guess the answer to that one.
He then writes: “the economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit… yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion”. Although there is truth in this, there are three faults in what he says. First, it is not “the market’s” place to do these things, it is individuals who act according to their morality or lack thereof – the fault is not in the market, but in sinful human beings. Second, Communism cannot do any better than the free market and in fact does almost infinitely worse. Third, it is precisely the hope of profit that prevents men from destroying what they or others have. If there is profit to be made from something, they preserve it. This is fundamental. Where there is no profit to something, people could not care less about it. It is not the State that can best protect the environment, but rather people, private individuals and institutions, with a vested interest in doing so. Again, plenty of documented evidence is available for those wanting it. Sadly, most do not.
Francis, in fact, actually admits this point later on when he writes that environmental degradation and social decay are the result of seeing “everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests”. But this is true: when a man is dirt-poor and every day is a struggle just to survive, what does he care about preserving his environment? But if he can see that doing so actually benefits him in some way, uplifts him, then he will do so. This is why Communism falls flat, and why the free market succeeds.
Francis then offers various “solutions” to the mythical “problems” he has listed:
He sees one “solution” in “The Gospel of Creation” (there is that expression again, which does not exist in God’s Word), stating in Chapter 2 that human life is grounded in our relationships with God, our neighbours and creation itself. All very nice-sounding; but the god of Roman Catholicism is not the true God! Nor is the god of Islam, the gods of Hinduism, etc. As a Papist he is speaking of the Roman Catholic god. Besides, for all his references to creation, he states in this very encyclical that the creation account in the Bible is merely symbolic, and thus not a real account of real events.
He states that sin is the breaking of man’s relationship with God, his neighbour and with the creation itself. Well, although one might be tempted to think two out of three ain’t bad, in truth a miss is as good as a mile. Sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4), and the eternal, absolute law of God is that man must love God with all his being and love his neighbour as himself (Matt. 22:36-40); but man breaking his relationship with creation? This is Francis’ own imagination at work. It is a pope yet again doing what popes have done countless times before, which is adding to God’s Word, for Antichrist has always thought to change God’s laws (Dan. 7:25). It shows that Francis has no true knowledge of what sin is, or of the God against whom he and all men have transgressed.
He sees another “solution” in “integral ecology” (see above), in Chapter 4. In analysing this “solution” he uses the popular liberation theology (Catholic-Communist) expression, the “preferential option for the poorest”. Reverting to his beloved Marxist themes in another “solution”, that of “dialogue”, he says this is necessary “so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good”. That phrase, “the common good”, pops up frequently in papal documents and others in these times, and is pure Marxism. And note the Jesuitical condemnation of “ideologies” that “prejudice the common good”, even while he himself is peddling a very particular prejudicial ideology, that of Marxism!
Yet another Francis “solution”, given in Chapter 6: urging schools, families, the media and the churches to reshape attitudes and behaviour! Yes, he has called for these institutions to become agents for massive societal and social change. Individualism needs to be overcome, he says. Well, what would replace individualism? Statism! Once again, Marxism wearing a religious face.
Another “solution” from Chapter 6: holding up the Romish “saint”, Francis of Assisi, as the model of “a more passionate concern for the protection of our world”. Do not make the mistake of underestimating the powerful symbolism of a role model. Rome has always made great use of symbols, and Francis of Assisi at the centre of Rome’s global Green/Red agenda is an incredibly powerful rallying figure. It gives a human face to an otherwise faceless global movement, a focal point in an actual historical human being, and also thereby adds a very powerful religious element to the entire radical environmentalist agenda which gives the Vatican a huge advantage in the international Green movement.
And lastly, one more religious “solution” is put forward, from Chapter 6 and the two concluding prayers: the Roman Catholic sacraments, the Trinity (Romish version of course), the model of the so-called “Holy Family”, and hope for eternal life, can (according to Francis) teach and strengthen us to protect the creation. All this he pulls out of his Green thumb, of course, because none of this is biblical. But who is to know? Certainly not the world’s 1.2 billion Papists, and certainly not the rest of the heathen world either.
Praise for the Pope and His Encyclical
The new papal encyclical was immediately welcomed by many, and will be welcomed by many more in the future.
Less than an hour after its release, Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, applauded the pope for his strong “moral and ethical leadership”. His praise would be followed by that of many others in the days ahead.
The Roman Catholic organisation, Caritas Internationalis, was dealt with above, because of its open and very willing involvement with a radical Marxist organisation, the World Social Forum. Caritas is, itself, Marxist in its analysis of issues, and in its approach. As soon as the encyclical was released, the president of Caritas, a cardinal named Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila, Philippines, said Francis had set out a vision for re-balancing the inequalities between rich and poor. This high-ranking “prince of the Church” had no doubt what Francis was actually calling for in the document: the pope, he said, was calling on the world “to change the economic structures that have caused so much harm and regain our responsibility for others and the world.” Changing the economic structures: this is Socialism/Marxism. Unable to contain his glee, he added that the encyclical “will inspire the work of Caritas organisations for years to come.” Let none then doubt what this is all about.