Wade on, as the waters are rising.

And Psalm 107 is the responsorial psalm appointed in the OF for this coming Sunday.

I still believe Al Gore is the cause of global warming.

I know it will rankle the conservatives among us, but you just might want to check with Pope Francis about that, as he has come down on the side of solid science on this issue.

I know it will rankle the conservatives among us, but you just might want to check with Pope Francis about that, as he has come down on the side of solid science on this issue.

I know it will rankle the liberals, but there is more to climate change than human effort. Output of the sun and volcanic activity are among the many other factors involved. Granted, people may be able to worsen it, but are not necessarily the only cause. Remember the Roman Warm Period, Maunder Minimum, and the 500-year-long Little Ice Age. Those represent fairly solid science, as well as, verifiable history. No, I don't expect you to remember them personally. You are not THAT old. LOL. Climate will change anyway, whether any of us like it or not. These events are long cycles spanning hundreds of years or more.

Pope Francis? What can I say. I guess he is too busy worrying about the weather to concern himself with Muslim aggression, beheading of Christians, the seemingly never ending state of war in much of the world, and the economic disaster caused by socialist regimes.

I think, had it not been for bickering among the Italian bishops, he would not have been elected. But he was, so I have no solution but to pray for the church. If you are into prophecy, some of the saints indicated the church would be in for a difficult time and many would lose their faith. I am not a fan of end-time prophecies, but things could get bad before they get better.

Read the letter, folks, before writing HHF off. We are catholic Catholics, nuff said.

'The pope seems intent on killing the Church.'

Strange, strange, indeed, it is to read this sort of sentiment on this forum. It's the sort of thoughtless and ungrounded mind-set that one encountered on Pray Tell in the not-too-distant days of good Pope Benedict. He could do no right. It is indeed strange that everyone (well, most everyone) says 'the pope said to do thus and so' if they like what he says, and think that he is all but anti-christ when he says what they do not wish to hear. On this conservatives and liberals are identical. When will we learn that the pope is the pope and what he says is of seminal importance in our lives whether it is about the appropriate solemnity with which mass should be celebrated, or the appropriate solemnity with which we should treat this beautiful earth (not to mention one another and the poor) that God has given us.

Global warming is a reality, like it or not. It won't be long before Santa Claus (and polar bears) will be homeless. Chiefest amongst those who gainsay this are the same sort of soulless philistines who insisted, lied, perjured, and doctored facts a few years ago in assuring us that cigarettes are not cancer-causing.

Charles is correct, of course. History, the geologists assure us, is replete with climate changes, some of them lethal and long-lasting. It is, it seems to me, though, rather disingenuous to, on that account, disregard the fact that we, we humans, are doing quite a bit to influence negatively the changes that are currently underway. We have been at this for a long time. Deforestation has been a near constant factor of human civilisation, as has the burning of coal and wood which pollute our atmosphere and all too often make the very air we breathe both odious and outright carcinogenic. The chemicals which are spewed into our atmosphere from industrial bowels would make the very earth inhospitable for life but for the fact that we have strict (and stubbornly resisted and skirted) laws governing their emission. Then there is the muck that industrial waste has turned our lakes and rivers into, turning the very fish we eat into poison. It may, may, be that our mother earth is in the process of a periodic climatic change, but it is incontestable that we are, if not the principle cause, aggravating it dangerously. Not only this, but that we have the means of curtailing it's effects if we are able to govern ourselves wisely.

Holy Father Francis should be praised for speaking out on this matter. This is not politics. This is morality. This is for the love and care of mankind. It is fully within his purview for him to address it as he sees fit. There is no area of human life which is off-bounds to the moral implications thereof. We should be rejoicing that we have a pope who is not a prisoner of his office and doesn't say only what is pleasing, or what the curia, or what certain special interests within the Church approve of. (Yes, we actually have them in the Church, and they stink.)

The only disappointment I have with him is in his seeming lack of concern for our musical patrimony and the manner of celebration of mass. Beyond that, there is nothing but a refreshing application of the gospel, and a praiseworthy fearlessness in telling us where we should be. Dominion over the earth does not mean rapine, pillage, and slaughter; it doesn't mean killing the last whale, mining the last mineral, heating up the air to lethal levels so that our factories can process the last bit of resources. Dominion over the earth is caring for it and using its resources wisely and harmlessly for the benefit of ALL. This is a matter of faith and morals. Bravo to Francis for saying what some would prefer him not to say, for not being tamed by the Vatican bureaucracy.

I've never been one to agree or disagree with anything a pope says- I haven't championed one or vilified another. I admit to being unsophisticated, but I'm not stupid; there is something about this pope that is disturbing to me.

"The pope seems intent on killing the Church."

Wow.

It's been an interesting 24 hours.

I'm in the midst of reading LS but thought this roundup of tidbits from it by CNS was a useful and positive takeaway and one I'd rather focus on than the more troubling aspects of the encyclical. I'm particularly impressed by the insistence on the Catholic principle of subsidiarity---in other words, that "local is better."

The items that have left me scratching my head in total bewilderment are these:

1) the call for global authorities with enforcement powers to deal with the environment crisis (paragraph 172),

2) the definition of the human soul as a "qualitative novelty" (paragraph 81)

and 3) the notion (paragraph 83) that man and all creatures "advance together" towards God:

"The end of the way of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been reached by Christ risen, fulcrum of the universal maturation. In this way we can add a further argument against an irresponsible and despotic dominion over the other creatures. The final end of other creatures is not us. Instead, all advance, together with us and through us, toward the common destination, which is God, in a transcendent fullness where Christ risen embraces and illuminates everything. The human being, in fact, gifted with intelligence and love, and attracted by the fullness of Christ, is called to lead all creatures toward their Creator. (LS 83)"

Popes come, and popes go. Blessed be the name of the Lord. Who knows what 10 years in the future will bring. It's good to not get too worked up over these things.

A couple of points:

(1) An ecumenical council is perhaps on a different level than an encyclical? I don't think the provisions of Paul VI's Populorum progressio on foreign aid, for example, are as binding as what Vatican II says about the nature of the Church in Lumen Gentium.

(2) Similarly, not everything in every council document or encyclical is stated with the same authority. The issue with the the SSPX is that they are disputing things in the Council generally considered authoritative (e.g. meaning of religious liberty) as opposed to things which are not (e.g. the evaluation of the modern world in the first part of Gaudium et spes).

(3) The rhetoric used by the SSPX ("modernist Rome," etc.) obscures their (arguably valid) point.

I began reading the PDF of the Encyclical, and have skimmed through the rest of it. My initial reaction is: "Well, duh. Tell us something with don't know. This is God's creation, yeah, got that. We need to stop human trafficking, yeah, got that. Rich countries spend too much money and take things away from the poor countries, yeah, we know." The 200 pages could easily have been reduced to 50. I just really don't see the point to this Encyclical.

And, if this is, as it is reported, a continuation of the Church's social teaching, why didn't he quote from Leo XIII or Pius XI? He only seemed to quote from the Vatican II Popes (with the exception of John Paul I), as if they are the only ones who ever wrote anything.

Frankly, I think that the trees needed to print this bad boy could have been better used.

Happy to hear what Abp. Lefebrve agreed to back in 1988. It's often hard to tell whether his followers are abiding by it or not.

Why should we expect musicians with a respect for the tradition to have a particular scientific or political position? 'Conservative' can be used to qualify lots of things that have no necessary connection.

We may occasionally hear harsh rhetoric from this or that person in the Church about the SSPX, or from an SSPX supporter or priest regarding the Church, but it would be a mistake to take that rhetoric as being *the* position of their side. Neither side of this relationship has a unitary point of view. The society's American clergy aren't the same as the European clergy, and the American lay supporters are more suspicious about a rapprochement than the clergy are.

Similarly, in the Roman curia, there is a diversity of views. There are some prelates who express opinions, even in matters where they bear no responsibility, and they may draw a hard line and call the SSPX schismatic; while the CDF officials who have the responsibility of dealing with them reject that characterization.

On both sides, there are some people who really don't care about a reconciliation. They may raise suspicions and draw contrasts in sharp terms. Their language condemns the other side and demands that the other side surrender or go away.

But the people in authority on both sides are acting to gradually restore the SSPX to a normal relationship. Thus there have recent gestures of confidence, such as the move by the Archbishop of Buenos Aires (certainly supported by Pope Francis) to help the local SSPX get recognition from the hostile government so that they can own property and resolve visa problems. And there is the decision of CDF to appoint Bp. Fellay as a judge (!) in a disciplinary case involving a society priest. Correspondingly, the fact that Fellay sent that case to CDF in the first place is his expression of deference to lawful authority.

[We now return to encyclical talk.]

Wow.

While I join with others in applauding the many wonderful moments in the Pope's ecology encyclical, I find the tone of surprised delight a bit puzzling. After all, the expectation is that the Pope will reaffirm Catholic doctrine, so I find it somewhat amusing to see commentators rejoicing that, "NEWS FLASH: the Pope has condemned abortion!" or "The Pope has called for people to go to church on Sunday!" or, as in the article above, the fact that Pope Francis actually quotes St. Thomas Aquinas in Laudato Si! Miracle of miracles.

Despite the sense of relief that large parts of the new encyclical are Catholic and worthy of perusal and meditation, I look forward to someone explicating how paragraphs 173 -175 which call for the regulation of the world economy by international agencies with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions can be reconciled with previous Catholic social teaching.

Not for nothing, and I mean this with all due respect and hope that I'm missing something and someone far more knowledgeable than I can explain this, but exactly how does one square this statement of Pope Francis in Laudato Si:

"The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions." [175]

with this statement of Pope Pius XII:

"To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations."
(Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

of of Pope John XXIII:

“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”

or of Pope Pius XI:

“[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

. . . And there are many more papal statements condemning socialism, the redistribution of wealth and the notion of an "all-powerful State" from the predecessors of Pope Francis.

. . . and the moon is made of green cheese and pigs can fly. Somehow part of Lewis Carroll's poem comes to mind:

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

In other words, let's just suspend the principle of non-contradiction for a while which is fine with me since I'm not too keen on pursuing this line of thought anyway. The implications are too unsettling.

But of course democracy (The German Democratic Republic) socialism (Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party) liberalism (The Liberal Party of Australia) mean quite different things to different people in different places. To understand Pope Francis you need to study Peronism (which few outside Argentina understand). All these labels cause unnecessary confusion.

the regulation of the world economy by international agencies with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions

The world used to have something like that. It was called the Catholic Church.

While I join with others in applauding the many wonderful moments in the Pope's ecology encyclical, I find the tone of surprised delight a bit puzzling. After all, the expectation is that the Pope will reaffirm Catholic doctrine, so I find it somewhat amusing to see commentators rejoicing that, "NEWS FLASH: the Pope has condemned abortion!" or "The Pope has called for people to go to church on Sunday!" or, as in the article above, the fact that Pope Francis actually quotes St. Thomas Aquinas in Laudato Si! Miracle of miracles.

Then what was so great about the Syllabus of Errors? "Pius X condemns theological errors"... as though we should be thrilled to bits that at least he wasn't supporting theological errors?