Pope Francis’ recent encyclical on global warming, Laudato Si, has been a rather hot topic of late (no pun intended). There is much in the encyclical, primarily found in the second chapter, which provides faithful Catholics a rich and deep understanding pertaining to man’s relationship with man, man’s relationship with God, man’s relationship with nature, and God’s relationship with nature. If one could capture the essential teaching element of the encyclical, it could be summarize thusly:
God created nature for man, not man for nature.[67] Nature is God’s gift to man as a means of expressing his love for man and to provide a reflection of God’s grandeur and glory for man to contemplate.[65] As such, man has a responsibility, identified in Holy Scripture, to be a good steward of this gift.[116] Unwonton waste[109], careless and slothful littering[90], gluttenous consumption[123], greedy acquisition and exploitation of resources[82], and abuse of nature through cruel and unnatural experimentation[130] are sins and sinful attitudes which lead to an unlivable degradation of various environments and the impoverishment of some people. Furthermore, the work of aid and development around the world, especially in the area of the environment, cannot blame population growth, seek a reduction in fertility rates through abortion or any other means of population control[50], or even view mankind as the source of the problem[136].
For further understanding of this, the second chapter of the encyclical is truly worth reading. Much of the rest of the encyclical focuses on matters completely outside the scope of theological thought or understanding, moral teaching or obligation, and seeks political solutions to a highly contentious scientific problem the pope specifically stated the faithful are not bound to accept.[61]
There have already been published volumes of articles both praising and dispariaging Pope Francis’ recent encyclical. Catholics should be reminded of both the teaching authority and respect owed to the Supreme Pontiff, even should it be found that within the encyclical are matters which promote some error and are not protected by the doctrine of infallibility. In 1949, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote an article for the American Ecclesiastical Review simply titled, The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals. In part one of his article, he cites Fr. Thomas Pegues, who wrote:
‘Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same.
This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.
Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.
This is to say that while many Catholics may be concerned or troubled by what is contained in an encyclical, we are all manifestly bound by reverence and obedience to what the Holy Father teaches us regarding faith and morals. Any sort of mockery, scoffing, scorn, or abject defiance of the Holy Father is sacrilegious, scandalous, and sinful.
That said, and while Catholics are bound to reverence toward the Holy Father, and must always receive his teachings with an open assent, the matters regarding that which we MUST believe according to papal teaching are only infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit under very specific conditions. The First Vatican Council decreed:
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
- in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
- he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
- that is, when,
Another great resource explaining the levels of authoritative Catholic teaching is this article by Fr. William Most.
In paragraph 15 of Laudato Si, Pope Francis said, “It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face.” In this sentence, we can see that Pope Francis is exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians. However, nowhere in the encyclical does he call upon his supreme apostolic authority to define any doctrine concerning faith and morals.
Fr. George Rutler, speaking on the new encyclical, eloquently summed up the binding and non-binding elements of Laudato Si by comparing it to the erroneous belief of Rex Mottram in Brideshead Revisited that the pope can perfectly predict the weather:
Pope Francis’ encyclical on the ecology of the earth is adventurously laden with promise and peril. It can raise consciousness of humans as stewards of creation. However, there is a double danger in using it as an economic text or scientific thesis. One of the pope’s close advisors, the hortatory Cardinal Maradiaga of Honduras said with ill-tempered diction: “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.” From the empirical side, to prevent the disdain of more informed scientists generations from now, papal teaching must be safeguarded from attempts to exploit it as an endorsement of one hypothesis over another concerning anthropogenic causes of climate change. It is not incumbent upon a Catholic to believe, like Rex Mottram in Brideshead Revisited, that a pope can perfectly predict the weather. As a layman in these matters, all I know about climate change is that I have to pay for heating a very big church with an unpredictable apparatus. This is God’s house, but he sends me the ConEd utility bills.
It is noteworthy that Pope Francis would have included in an encyclical, instead of lesser teaching forms such as an apostolic constitution or motu proprio, subjects that still pertain to unsettled science (and to speak of a “consensus” allows that there is not yet a defined absolute). The Second Vatican Council, as does Pope Francis, makes clear that there is no claim to infallibility in such teaching.
It’s important to establish how Catholics must approach, receive and comment on the pope’s new encyclical because there is a temptation among extremes to either reject and scorn it or receive it entirely as gospel truth. The former falls dangerously close to sacrilege and scandal. The latter, however, poses a danger for all Christendom as the contentious scientific claims made in the encyclical and the suggested political solutions will be used by the enemies of the Church to foster a new persecution the likes of which the Church hasn’t seen in more than a thousand years.
As the Lepanto Institute warned on the eve of the encyclical’s public release, there is a collaborative effort between individuals working in the Church and the enemies of the Church in the United Nations, to implement a deadly program called the Sustainable Development Goals. On the day of the encyclical’s promulgation, Dr. Carolyn Woo, president of Catholic Relief Services, did exactly as was predicted; in paragraphs 18 and 21 of her presentation, Dr. Woo plugged the SDGs:
- Seventh, a human-centered approach based on the principles of inclusive development can create better economic growth and better economic conditions—growth that benefits the many, not just the few; growth that strengthens local communities and builds resilience; growth that increases substantive freedoms and aids human flourishing. This is not just a dream or empty ideal but serve as operational goals of the global community including the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (to be released in September 2015) and the World Bank’s top priorities for the elimination of extreme poverty and reduction of income inequality.
- Let me make one final point. This encyclical certainly affirms the important role that business will need to play, but Pope Francis is clear that we need partnerships between public and private sectors—as he puts it, “politics and economics in dialogue for human fulfillment.” Since both public and private sectors have the same goal, and are integrated into the same interconnected web of life, they need to work together in harmony. Sometimes that means business being more accepting of stronger forms of regulation, especially in the financial sector. It also means business getting fully on board with the new Sustainable Development Goals and the need to take action to combat climate change.
In the coming weeks, the Lepanto Institute will investigate and examine the Sustainable Development Goals, and provide ample evidence for the faithful to see that the Sustainable Development Goals pose a clear and present danger to the faithful, to human lives, and to the Church.
We are so confused these days by the constant barrage of contradictory this, that , and the other thing. We have studied our Catholic Faith a great deal in these past several years in order to grasp the Truth, and much of our study has been facilitated by going back to the times before Vatican II. The infallible teachings of the pre Vatican II popes, the writings of the erudite doctors of the Church, the saints, etc. have been invaluable. The main thanks is owed to our Lord and our Blessed Mother as our prayers were answered for their leadership in this endeavor to learn the true Faith . We do not intend to stop praying for this wisdom as it pertains to this current difficult and dare I say “chaotic” state that is unfolding again to the tune and seduction of those ” powers that Should NOT Be” in the world and the church. We pray, ” GOD please lead and guide us that YOUR WILL BE DONE.” Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
I think this quote tells us what we need to know about climate change:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill” – Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991).
If you haven’t heard of the Club of Rome, I suggest you look it up.
There is no contradiction when these issues are considered properly, as Fr. Rutler infers. With respect to Laudato si, Pope Francis clearly and infallibly describes the nature of the gift of nature and the sin of man against it. Who could argue. The part that is not infallible is what goes beyond the realm of faith and morals – the “settled science”. So there is no contradiction.
Vatican II is a treasure of truth. Don’t give in to the propaganda of what isn’t – what dissenters wanted it to be. The Holy Spirit can’t err. The humans that adhere only to Vatican I allege as much.
Phil, We were referring to the myriad contradictions in the most general sense as pertains to so much regarding this, that, and the other thing in the world in which we live at this point in salvation history. Who is Father Rutler? Vatican II was a pastoral and not a dogmatic Council; therefore, since nothing was infallibly declared nor defined and there was never any intention to do so, the Holy Spirit was not promised in the same way as a safeguard and protection against error. The Holy Spirit can not ever err. The fruits of Vatican II speak for themselves. Did you know that Pope Paul VI lamented that although he and others hoped that Vatican II would usher in a new springtime for the Church, instead somehow the smoke of satan entered?
The Lepanto Institute is off to a fine start, but I must warn against one error herein (an error repeated several times in the linked earlier post on the eve of release). The error is this: the science of man-made climate change is not contentious – only the politics are. Scientists collect and interpret data, and adjust their interpretations as new data arrives. With the exceptions of the talking head scientists (both alarmists and deniers) who pop up from time to time in the political discussions, we the scientists are not being contentious.
There is a clear, consistent trend in the data of thousands of studies in dozens of disciplines that human behavior can and does alter the environment around that behavior. There are varying models of whether that change is alarming or only interesting, and the extent to which it is harmful vs. helpful. There is also much struggle with trying to understand the enormity of the phenomenon, because none of us is trained to be a leading expert in all the many different sciences involved.
But even the small number of papers that assert little or no man-made environmental change are consistent with the percentage of disagreeing conclusions we would expect, given the statistical techniques we employ (sampling produces error, which sometimes produces erronious conclusions).
Keep up the good work, by adding the clarity to your writing that the science isn’t contentious … rather, it is the politics that are contentious.
Why did the”scientific” community in the 1970’s predict the doom and gloom of “Global Cooling” and an eminent “Ice Age” ? Then decades later the scientific community does a complete about face and converts to “Global Warming” – not only the polar extreme of global cooling – but an entirely rigged scheme that was cratered and undermined by the world-wide findings revealed and then exposed by East Anglia University.
When “Global Warming” exploded, the scientific community changed yet again proffering a new mid-point calamity called “Climate Change”. Now isn’t that special – especially since the climate is [thankfully] already programmed by the Creator to change 4 times each year – summer; fall ; winter; and spring. So now the climate changers blame God for creating humanity which is in turn blamed for killing itself via climate change. Ah…that smoke of Satan is in so many eyes.
Why would anyone ever trust science when science is so miserably [and in this case with premeditation] incorrect? Science might occasionally get it right when it explains what happened. Yet science will always lack the capacity to fully explain “why” things happen. The “why” is conjecture called SWAG [scientific wild- ass guessing] as so repeatedly proven by the obvious gross miscalculations with “global cooling”; then “global warming”; and then again “climate change” propaganda.
Moreover, as is the case with the cesspool called politics, you can buy any scientific research finding you want if you have enough money [federal and state grants] and power [federal and state dictates] to pay for the findings you want. At best less than 50% of scientists support the ceaseless climate conundrums . How can CO2 be a pollutant when it is a natural gas exhaled by human beings which in turn is used by plant life to give off oxygen? If CO2 is a danger to the environment, then oxygen must also be a danger to the environment since both are forever symbiotically designed and linked?
How can all of these exaggerations be caused by human beings even though all 3 exaggerations are materially different in logic and reason? Why do all 3 exaggerations call for the same ultimate remedy which is the thinning the “human herd” of useless eaters; masses of pulsating maggots; and gobbets of meat protruding from wombs so that humanity reaches a point of population implosion which makes it possible for humanity to replenish itself ?
Who could ever trust scientists with anything? What science claims to know about why things happen could fit into the head of a pin with enough room left over for each of the 7 billion + world wide inhabitants each to own and occupy 700 billion 850 quadrillion sq. mile farms.
As a stand alone menace, the climate exaggerations won’t cause the end of humanity as we know it. However, when combined with abortion; euthanasia; gendercide; geriatricide; obama cide; sterilization; artificial contraception; abortifacients; saluting sodomy etc. ; and when combimed with toxic totalitarian wealth re-distributing family destroying big governemnt, humanity as we have always known it can cease to exist.
The intent is for the elites to have the world to themselves.
Good comment. Thanks!
D.M. Stewart, you are so so right (unfortunately for those of us who live in this evil age). Thank you for stating so well the corruption that has been masquerading as “science”. I remember that Al Gore predicted according to science that in 2013 the polar ice caps would be completely melted. I recently read that not only is this false, but that the ice caps have increased by 27%. Nobel prize winner and academy award winner that he is, he should be discredited as should the pseudo science that the media and all its tentacles have so much influenced and propagandized us with. The new mantra of “climate change” has replaced the old mantra of “global warming”, but the goals of world wide domination have by no means changed. Many have been programmed and been successfully converted to believe that this poisonous doctrine of satan and his disciples that is being fed to us on a regular and consistent basis is worthy of belief. One priest I know has spoken many times about how the human being falls prey to a continuous onslaught of repeated propaganda that is being used, in order that a particular propaganda is elevated to such a degree that it becomes doctrine ( though false) within the belief system of a person and also the masses of people. The mass media has collectively and successfully been indoctrinating the masses with this form of manipulation. Need I remind anyone about, “weapons of mass destruction. weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction……..” This is why this system is being used to “educate” our children from kindergarten age onward to believe as they are told. It is a war in order to control the minds of everyone. Remember how satan used this to manipulate our first parents. None of the evil can ever be separated from the bottom line which is the war between satan and God. God has revealed the truth, has given us given us the weapons to use, and will lead us to proper discernment through His Bible and His Church. All that we need to know has already been revealed by God to us in scripture and doctrine and has nothing to do with the corrupt men within the church institution at present. The greatest error is that we fail to understand this bottom line. With God all things are possible. We must always and in every way turn to God for everything in this war. It is and always will be a recipe for failure to leave God out of the solution to anything including this worldwide mess; and that is why the “powers that should not be” first and foremost put forth their plan to remove God from the public square if they are to accomplish their goals. After all, satan believes in God more than anyone else although he hates Him, is aware that when he is able to get us to remove God from the solution and we are on our own, we will fail and he will achieve his evil. The disciples of satan understand and believe in God more than we do, and so they make every effort to remove God from our minds and actions. It is imperative for them to do so, and they know the Truth. Therefore, the victory will never be accomplished by man alone, and God is always the answer to overcome all evil. God and only God will always lead us to victory. We must understand that God is the only answer, we must not be led to believe that we can do this on our own, and we must be as wise as the serpents! May God bless us and keep us. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (For the greater Glory of God).
Nancy and Mark…Thank you for your feedback. As has been shown, in the revolution the issue isn’t really the issue. The ceaseless and ever growing supply of issues; upon issues; upon issues are sinister and cunning distractions from the real issue which is simply fighting for the immortal soul. I call this the ceaseless cosmic civil war where two competing forces [good vs. evil] fight for control over the individual immortal soul. As has been said, God claims every square foot of the Universe which is in turn counter claimed by Satan. Satan is the great liar and deceiver. Look how he deceived our first parents. He festers inside and feeds upon human weakness,
The lie is the root cause for all human suffering. The purpose of all lies is to hide the truth. There was a time when lies would encircle the world before the truth had a chance to put its boots on. The truth always plays catch up and is on the defensive. Today, lies encircle the world and the truth isn’t allowed to put its boots on. The best liars sometimes tell the truth. This is intentional to cause doubt, confusion and uncertainty and most of all to inflame the divide and conquer stratagem. While it is harder today to hide the truth, it is far easier to blur it. Blur is better than blindness because it creates far greater doubt. No matter the attempt by the Pope to cite noble claims within the encyclical, all such claims are automatically and totally devoured by the evil concept in which the noble claims rest.
Think of a wooden structure that is fatally infested with termites. Then think of changing a few of the wooden planks while leaving the entire remainder of the wooden structure fully infested. Whatever good the Pope said [even if he meant what he said] is not only subsumed by concept itself but it creates grave confusion the extent of which is already unparalleled. The noble things stated by the Pope should have been the sum and substance of the encyclical without any reference to the lie infested conundrum of “global” this; that; these and those.
D,M. Stewart, We thank you for your response.
All here, We want to put a question out for everyone.
Who was the first pope to be referred to as satan?
By whom?
Jack, the first pope to be called satan was the first pope, Peter by our Lord Jesus. In Matthew XVI , this revelation of our Lord Jesus is explained to us, and this is the key to understanding Bishop of Rome Francis.
Don’t forget that the elites plan to have a few golem around to serve them. (Georgia guide stones)
Because, DJ, that global cooling comment is a lie: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/25/huckabees-claim-that-global-freezing-theories-from-the-1970s-shows-the-science-is-not-as-settled-on-climate-change/
No, not exactly a lie; perhaps an exaggeration, but not a lie. I read the link you give to the Washington Post, a notoriously left-wing American newspaper, hardly above the fray. Frankly, I don’t really trust anything published there.
The Wash Post has always been a CIA front.
The assessment of the credibility of the source always lies in the mind of the reader.
I’ve always found it fascinating that this credibility assessment begins and ends with the question: “Is this source saying something I already agree with?”
I don’t know if the rag is a front for the CIA or not; frankly, I don’t really care. But the point you make is only partially valid, although many treat it today as if it were absolute wisdom. We all understand we should take with a grain of salt anything we read in, say, L’humanité or in NSM Magazine. But the fashionable position now is “We are so broadminded that we NEVER shoot the messenger!”, although as you point out, many frequently do just that. I’ve noticed that leftists in all countries are especially partial to this approach.
Real scientific investigation isn’t contentious, but HOW MUCH real scientific investigation is FUNDED and how much of THAT percentage sees the light of day when the results aren’t what the powers-that-be desire? I ignore all so-called scientific research when it has been funded by NGOs or big business since they cannot be trusted to have the public’s interest as their motivation.
Michael, you are correct that the Pope is not adopting any economic or scientific theory as Catholic doctrine. And, a “fear” that others will misconstrue the Encyclical is largely unfounded. Saint Pope John Paul II wrote Laborem Exercens on the rights of workers and rejected unrestrained capitalism. Saint Pope John Paul II stated:
“The position of ‘rigid’ capitalism continues to remain unacceptable, namely the position that defends the exclusive right to private ownership of the means of production as an untouchable ‘dogma’ of economic life. The principle of respect for work demands that this right should undergo a constructive revision, both in theory and in practice.”
Nobody called this Saint a socialist! And this Saint’s work on the rights and value of the worker are a well-established part of Catholic social teaching.
So, please, relax. You are just trying to play on the fears of those you perceive to be less educated that you (or more anxious).
In addition to this point, consider this:
“In the coming weeks, the Lepanto Institute will investigate and examine the Sustainable Development Goals, and provide ample evidence for the faithful to see that the Sustainable Development Goals pose a clear and present danger to the faithful, to human lives, and to the Church.”
Michael. you are not speaking truthfully if you are promising your supporters that you will “investigate” and “examine.” I’ve accused you of reasoning backwards from your pre-set conclusions in the past. This is Exhibit A. Apparently, you plan to make a selective reading of the discussions that have taken place amongst nations in the development goals (none of which are binding on the U.S., by the way). I’m sure you will find folks who have said things you disagree with.
The key question for the Institute is whether you buy into the anthropocentric view of the environment that the Pope counsels against. Consider and advocate what you would recommend the Church teach when it comes to world economic development. Is is only what is good for suburban communities in Virginia??
Nancy and Mark, being a Bolivian citizen, where the term “mother earth” has even rights (Law 071), I can assure you that people over here has little to non existent Catholic knowledge. This makes it difficult for the majority to even understand what you mention.
Because God is wonderful, I was able to leave back my “ecologist” way of thinking, an ideal I had developed during 5 years while studying biology. I was reconciled through Christ and recognized that to stop all the pollution/extinction/harm…it is really much needed to approach first to our Creator with a contrite heart. It doesn’t matter how powerful the CBD convention becomes under UN government, no matter how many other conventions you create to complete this GREEN feeling….as long as humans remain broken and far away from God, nothing will be a real solution.
May God transform the hearts and minds of those who are leading His Church, so we go back to Church teachings, those that care for the redemption of souls.
Michael, how do you answer what the Pope taught very aggressively about gun businesses? To agree with the Pontiff on this point goes directly against the Founding Fathers of this magnificent country that gave us the Second Amendment to bear arms to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. I cannot reconcile the two and I will not give up the latter… especially when we are on the verge of ISIS killing us in our own homes and the government taking over the country. How do we handle such error if we cannot state that the Pope is wrong without being disrespectful? What if a pontiff is a modernist pope, upholding and promulgating the Modernist Heresy condemned by previous pontiffs? Please make sense of this for me….
God bless!
Kathy: I may be wrong but I believe the pope was addressing the problem of armament manufacturers rather than those who simply manufacture guns, the latter being companies like Winchester, Ruger, and Sig Sauer. The former fabricate bombs, tanks, submarines, military aircraft, etc., to sell to governments as a business, but the latter, while they may do some of that, mainly concentrate on the production of weapons that are the focus of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution that you mention.
Two things need be said here, however. First, your implied endorsement of the “Founding Fathers” of the republic is touching but, I believe, misplaced. Always remember that Jefferson and Franklin and many others associated with them were men with very serious personal failings. For example, Franklin’s frolicking in England where he was a member of the Hellfire Club cannot or at least shouldn’t be discussed in front of children. The same is true of the slave holder Jefferson, and his reputation is further clouded by what he did with his slaves at the end of his life.
The second thing that we need to reflect on is something else Pope Francis mentioned in his anti-armaments talk. After saying arms manufacturers couldn’t call themselves truly Christian, he went on to discuss the Shoah and to scold WW II Allied commanders and politicians ex post facto for not bombing the railway lines that led to places like Buchenwald, Treblinka, Dachau, etc. No one present at the pope’s presentation seems to have registered the incongruence of his denouncing arms manufacturers in one paragraph, only to recommend the use of their products in another.
Poor Pope Francis really ought to run his talks by Pope Emeritus Benedict before he gives them.
Be not afraid!
The Pope simply preached that the worship of weaponry as the answer to our anxieties has no foundation in our Christian faith. Those that sell weapons by playing on fear and anxiety actively work to undermine our faith.
I do a considerable amount of volunteer work in inner city Baltimore. I travel and work unarmed. I have no need for weapons. By projecting the love and humility and common sense Christ gave me,, I have never had occasion to be fearful in these neighborhoods.
I pray that Christ will quiet your fears and anxieties.
Fire arms are necessary for defending one self and one’s loved one’s against totalitarianism. That’s why we have the second amendment. If I remember correctly, Switzerland requires gun ownership and the knowledge of how to use guns – even automatic weapons. Switzerland is all but crime-free. Switzerland – again if I understand correctly – wasn’t given immunity during the second world war because they made chocolate or because of banking prowess. Actually, it would seem that banking and wealth would have been liabilities with Hitler on the prowl. It seems that they were able to declare immunity as a sovereign nation because all of their people were armed. Hitler – like all bullies – preferred the low hanging fruit throughout Europe where shovels and pitch-forks were weapons of choice. While Switzerland is a tiny country and has a small military to match its small population. Switzerland, as I recall, is not a member of the European Union. Nevertheless, when counting all of the citizens in Switzerland who are armed [by law?], I also recall that such a contingent when added to the small standing army is larger than the formal military of the entire European Union. If my somewhat aged memory is correct as so far cited, this is a classic example of keeping state defense spending low while institutionalizing a citizen owned and defended land which is kept free from the fear of those who might otherwise want citizens disarmed so that the citizens can be intimidated and/or enslaved. The Swiss don’t have to worry about being subjected to a manufactured crises or being victimized by “don’t ever let a crises go to waste” power brokers. Thus, they seem to have freedom from fear of incessant pushing and shoving over who has guns. It seems to me that given the constant chaos and looming pandemonium that prevails in this dying [or dead] country, that we all should take measures to protect ourselves, and those we know and care about JUST IN CASE. Having guns does not mean having to use them. Much like having fire insurance on your home, it’s there if you need it but hoping you never will. Just trying to help. My memory and history about Switzerland may not be 100% correct. It is the message about preparation that is intended.
Note: Is immunity the right word to use?
You’ve already made sense of it. Don’t look to others for that. Your common sense and the Holy Ghost will guide you if you’re really seeking the truth. First seek TRUTH.
We want to share a blog item from another site in its entirety as follows:
” Bergoglio was elected on 3/13/13 at 3:13 pm NYC time — where the UN one world order headquarters is located.
I was looking at my watch at the time to see if they would actually announce the name at 3:13 to give their signal to the world that their man was finally elected. A friend of mine was also looking at her watch, too. (We both had our suspicions, already recognizing the strangeness of the date 3/13/13. ) The person paused momentarily just prior to the announcement of the new ‘pope’ as if waiting for the exact moment. ‘They’ (ie; slaves of satan) have this thing about numbers — Part of their signals to each other. 13 is one of their favorites.
Of course, we know that Our Lady has Her signals and signs, too, to all who have ears to listen. She appeared on the 13th of the month from May to October, 1917, excluding the month of August.
Our Lord is Lord of ALL NUMBERS. And He does reveal things to us at times because He loves us. He lets us in on their little signals they give to each other, if it is for His greater glory. Who knows why my friend and I ‘saw’ that? Maybe so I could tell all of you, Her children.
He is ‘their’ man, for sure! “
LET’S FACE IT: We are the most sinful people yet as “Christians” of the “New” Testament. And, if the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah of the Old Testament deserved death and destruction raining down from them from God Almighty–Then surely for our sinfulness we deserve worse.
However, the difference is that we have Jesus Christ and His/Our Blessed Mother to take on our sins. Our Lord and Lady who suffer SO much for our sake-(SIGH!)-and yet we ignore their help.
The question of “Global Warming” is a reality in-so-far as there really is a hell and it’s furnace of churning coal-like condemned has more souls going to hell than “snowfakes in a snowstorm” as Blessed Jacinta Marto, Our Lady of Fatima showed this little child who offered penance for us.
THAT WAS IN 1917!!!-WELL BEFORE THE EARTH WAS STAINED BY RAMPANT HOMOSEXUALITY, ABORTION, EUTHANASIA AND THE OTHER SINS “CRYING OUT TO HEAVEN FOR JUSTICE”.
The bottom line is that we have both as confounding a pope as such we have of a race of humans; and we deserve every uneasy, unsettling, confusing and chaotic earthly world of evil.
WOW, Carol. That is the TRUTH!!!
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM
Am aflat aceasta pagina, dupa ce am cautat despre An Examination of Laudato Si and the Specter of Sustainable Development pe Google.
Se pare ca informatia dvs e foarte valoroasa, mai ales ca am
mai gasit aici si despre ora, ora exacta, lucruri interesante si folositoare.
Mult succes in continuare!