In a lengthy address to the International Association of Penal Law, “Francis” (as he is widely known) said:
An elementary sense of justice would require that certain conduct, for which corporations are usually responsible, does not go unpunished. In particular, all those that can be considered as “ecocide”: the massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem. We must introduce – we are thinking about it – in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ecological sin against the common home, because it is a duty.
An elementary sense of justice… sin against ecology… because it is a duty.
The choice of words in this case is very telling. You see, justice, in its most elementary sense, is to render unto God what He is due, as is every man’s duty. Failure to do so is a sin against God. In Jorge’s version, as one can plainly see, God has been unceremoniously replaced by ecology; i.e., Mother Earth. No shocker here, coming as this does on the heels of PaganCon, aka the Amazonian Synod.
The stage for the proposed eco-revision of the so-called “Catechism” was set in 2015 with the publication of the Envirocyclical, Laudato Si’, wherein the concept of “our sins against creation” (LS 8) was introduced.
“What is new is the vaguely pantheistic and certainly rather confused language in which current church authority is incompetently attempting to speak of these matters,” theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski told LifeSiteNews.
While the language being used may be vaguely pantheistic, the program itself is plainly humanistic, and its roots extend all the way back to… wait for it… wait for it… the Almighty Council! Indeed, what we are witnessing is not so much the divinization of nature, but rather the divinization of man as expressed, in part, by the conciliar treatment of man’s relationship with creation.
According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown (Gaudium et Spes 12).
I think it’s safe to say that St. Paul would disagree:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ … That he might make known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He hath purposed in Him, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things that are in heaven and on earth in Christ (cf Ephesians 1:3, 9-10).
In this, the contrast between the Catholic faith and the conciliar faith couldn’t be starker.
The re-establishment of all things on earth was occasioned by original sin, the felix culpa of Adam and Even – the happy fault which gained for us so good and great a Redeemer.
The Fall may well be understood as that act whereby our first parents attempted to treat all things on earth as if they really should be related to man as their center and crown, and this in spite of God’s clear command to the contrary.
One might even say that this is the nature of all sin; a futile attempt to elevate man, either collectively or individually, to the autonomous status of “center and crown.” In truth, it is in the person of Jesus Christ alone, the Redeemer to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given (cf Mat 28:18), that all things are properly related, can be restored, and attain to their ultimate purpose.
With this in mind, it is no exaggeration to say that the Council’s treatment of man vis-à-vis his relationship with the things of the earth (as proposed in GS 12) is the inversion and the attempted undoing of God’s will; it is a veritable attempt to thwart His good pleasure.
One also rightly observes that the Council’s humanism is well understood as a form of messianism; i.e., by attempting to usurp the place of Christ Jesus as the center and crown to which all things should be related, it is an attempt to make of man his own Messiah.
In this, the conciliar church shares substantial common ground with the majority of self-identified Jews in our time (in Latin, nostra aetate, also the name of the conciliar text that falsely describes the Catholic Church’s relationship with Judaism).
Reform Judaism teaches that, in partnership with God, it is up to us to make the world into a place of peace and justice, and that we cannot wait nor do we expect a personal Messiah. – Rabbi Joseph Meszler
As I observed in this space back in 2015:
No one cause, arguably, has taken on quasi-religious status among Reform Jews to an extent equal to that of radical environmentalism – a movement-within-the-movement that twists the Psalmists words, addressed to God, “Thou shalt send forth thy spirit, and they shall be created: and thou shalt renew the face of the earth,” into a manifesto for purely human endeavors that tend toward earth worship …
[Francis] is revealing himself all the more clearly to be exactly that, and his pontificate as precisely what one might expect should a man with the mind of a liberal Jew somehow ascended to the Chair of St. Peter. (For more, see If the Pope was a Liberal Jew, Aug. 12, 2015)
In the years since the above was written, it has become all the more clear that Jorge Bergoglio’s religion is most certainly not Catholicism; in fact, it appears far closer to Reform Judaism than anything else – with the promotion of so-called economic justice, gun control, immigration reform, and radical environmentalism being among its main objectives.
In his address of November 15, Francis cited the Amazonian Synod’s definition of ecological sin as an “action or omission against God, against one’s neighbor, the community and the environment … a sin against future generations.”
It would be naïve to assume that, when Jorge Bergoglio speaks of “God,” he is speaking of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as did St. Paul; no more than the rabbi cited above understands “God” to be the Father of Jesus Christ.
It has become entirely evident over these last six, dreadful, years that his is not the “Catholic God” but rather is it a generic, false god – the “God of Surprises” that wills the diversity of religion in the same way that male and female are willed by the Creator – a deity that is somehow glorified by Pachamama idols, bowls of dirt, and pagan rituals.
Ultimately, however, there can be no doubt that the Bergoglian god is none other than the Council’s god, mankind, the center and crown to which it proposed all things on earth should be related. And let us not forget that Jorge Bergoglio is the same who, dressed in papal garb, stood before a gathering at the Vatican, drew upon the falsehood set forth in Gaudium et Spes 12, and boldly declared that “man is King of the Universe!”
Make no mistake; it is his unshakable fidelity to the false, humanistic, god of Vatican II – which bears a striking resemblance to the “messianic man” of most self-identified Jews in our time – that moves Francis to decry “ecocide” and “sins against ecology.”