Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Laudato Si — “Sustainability” — Part VIII

July 22nd, 2015, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Code Words and the U. N.

There is a code word that the United Nations and its liberal affiliates and supporters use to justify abortion in particular.  One of the participants (rumored to even be a contributor) to Pope Francis’ environmental Encyclical has been reported to believe that the earth cannot “sustain” the 7 billion people who inhabit it at present.  It is that concept of “sustainability” and a determination to ‘play God’ which leads to contraception, abortion, euthanasia, curtailing medical treatment for the elderly and promotion of same-sex unions, which of course are not expected to give rise to big families, or perhaps not to any families at all.

War, diseases like Ebola (where did it go? was it just a test case for global spread?), and plague all have their part in finding solutions such as advocated by Hitler as the ‘final solution.’ Such are the kinds of factors which have brought pressure on the Vatican from the U.N., involving charges of ‘torture’ for refusing to accept same-sex unions. Such are the kinds of financial pressures governments like the U.S. brings on the sovereign nations of Africa to force them to support abortion and same-sex unions.  Such are the kinds of pressures for which Canada and the U.S. seek to seize public education, to grow children who are blind to evil so that there will be no turning back.  Sustainability of the earth becomes the argument, or at least a code word for the argument. It is a profound lack of trust in the God Who created humankind, and said: “Go forth and multiply.”  If successful, it will dwarf the Holocaust.  The stakes are enormous; it is about souls, not environmental pollution.

Make no mistake, the code word of “sustainability” is  sprinkled throughout Laudato Si, not overtly challenging our Faith today, but only death-rattling sabers in the closet.  It would be very difficult to say this word is only accidentally the same as the U. N. code word, although we have no way of knowing if the text was supplied by others and naively accepted.

The Influence of International Conferences and Organizations on a Catholic Encyclical

If you don’t know about the U.N.’s sustainability goals, a primer can be found at:  and and

Of concern in the Encyclical is footnote #18 which references Global Responsibility and Ecological Sustainability,” closing remarks from the Halki Summit I, Istanbul June 2012. We are presented with no explanation or credible argument why such theories outside the Catholic Church should form a basis to teach on “sustainability.” Without one’s having received any explanation, it would appear from the Encyclical that Pope Francis and its other authors, if any (unidentified), seem to have bought into  the U.N. agenda, wholesale.

One can also read the 26 page Rio report referenced in Laudato Si (dated 2010 but covering through conferences in 2012!) Even a quick perusal shows similar language and mindsets to Laudato Si.  It seems inappropriate to have an Encyclical of the Catholic Church depend on so much secular and pseudo-government propaganda.  Here is the link:   .

“The Earth Charter” formulated in The Hague in 2000 is another one of the documents behind the Encyclical and referenced in it.  More info is here:  The related quote is: “Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.”  (#207) 

One gets the impression with these document references that Laudato Si is not leading the way but rather is following the One World route long plotted and lobbied.

Let us further develop this “sustainability” thread through the following Encyclical quotes:

“The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change.” (#13)  

“… the goals of this rapid and constant change are not necessarily geared to the common good or to integral and sustainable human development.” (#18)

“…some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate …. developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of ‘reproductive health’…  it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment….” (#50)  So far, perhaps so good in identifying issues, but then Pope Francis misses a major opportunity in this paragraph to condemn the practices he recounted, pressure on Africa in particular and policies like China’s “one child” program.  One has to ask WHY he would introduce the subject and then miss the opportunity to teach, in an encyclical explicitly said to be targeted to the world. Instead of expounding on the morality of such issues, the author attacks waste in wealthier countries, a U.N. priority agenda item, which seeks ways to extricate funds from wealthier countries to support the U.N.’s efforts!

“There are regions now at high risk and, aside from all doomsday predictions, the present world system is certainly unsustainable from a number of points of view.”  (#61)

“…when we speak of “sustainable use” consideration must always be given to each ecosystem’s regenerative ability in its different areas and aspects.”  (#140)  However, continuing to read, we note there is no prescription to change what is railed against.  This will be expanded in a further part of the analysis regarding the potential role of socialism and/or Marxism as a solution, though not specifically named.

“We can no longer speak of sustainable development apart from intergenerational solidarity….[which is] not optional but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we  have received also belongs to those who will follow us.” (#159)  This is the lead-in section to the shocking language reported earlier regarding how we leave the planet being the “ultimate meaning of our earthly sojourn.”

“The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro … proclaimed that ‘human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.”  This statement is ambiguous as it can mean both the reduction in number of human beings or reduction of their reproduction, almost always through immoral practices, or it can simply mean it will take human beings to fix global problems. Generally, it is not useful to recount the ambiguous, except in cases where the ambiguous could be a deliberate cover for that which cannot be morally articulated.

“…we need to grow in the conviction that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form of progress and development….  Efforts to promote a sustainable use of natural resources are not a waste of money …., but rather an investment capable of providing other economic benefits in the medium term….”  (#191)  In the very general words which follow, there is no suggestion as to how consumption can be decreased without getting rid of people!  Or by strongly contracepting future generations.

The foregoing paragraph seems to be somewhat disjointed with what follows:   “…talk of sustainable growth usually becomes a way of distracting attention and offering excuses.  It absorbs the language and values of ecology into the categories of finance and technocracy, and the social and environmental responsibility of businesses often gets reduced to a series of marketing and image-enhancing measures.”  (#194)  

The conflict between those two final quotes may be a proxy for “sustainability” is whatever the U.N. or self-appointed committees and organizations say it is, when they define or redefine.  From that viewpoint it is about power, in a different form. leading to socialistic overtones.

But from so much that has been written, it appears that support of the U.N. “sustainability” arguments seem to ultimately put Catholics in a spiritually untenable bind.  The language  rests uncomfortably side-by-side with inconsistent or unacceptable implications such as:

  • If we really accepted the concept of unsustainability, which is unproven like global warming and climate change, how do we protect against the creep toward a “lesser of two evils” argument?
  • Is aiding U.N. objectives regarding environment and pollution also abetting their immoral strategies?
  • Since the most crucial resource of a human being is time, a totally non-renewable resource, where and how do the activities demanded by saluting the ‘sustainablilty flag’ impinge on our greater spiritual duties?

The reader can see that language and vocabulary are being picked and chosen very carefully in both U.N. quotes and in the Encyclical to avoid too obvious a statement of incompatibility between goals.  But what is especially disappointing is that, given the ear of the world, there  is no  taking ‘head-on’ the refutation of the evil being foisted through the programs of the U.N. and other aligned organizations.

Tags: ,


4 Responses to “Laudato Si — “Sustainability” — Part VIII”

  1. Eliza10 says:

    Pope Francis’ popularity is down here among the U.S., and I can see why. He is supposed to be a teacher, and with the things you point out here, it certainly SEEMS as if, in an effort to stay popular with the world, he shirked his responsibility to teach the unpopular, threatened truths of our faith. Which is horrible. That is what we need from our Shepherd. To ignore the U.N.’s actions and policies concerning population control and use their language that they use to support it – is just WRONG. So I am concerned. And I think that I am not alone in that I am still smarting from his “breed like rabbits” comment. Because we all know wonderful Catholic families who have many children, and we know how rare and special that is, and we know what unkindnesses they have to face from our culture as a result of going anti-culture and welcoming and loving all those children God sent them. To give fuel to their detractors, from their own Holy Father – I am just confused. Yes, he retracted it, but “large families are a blessing” just does not stick in anyone’s mind like “breeding like rabbits” does — that gets totally stuck. To unstick that, you need to say and do a LOT more. What an opportunity with the encyclical. But instead it’s another lost opportunity. He continues to leave a wake of confusion behind him. So opposite Pope Benedict. And Pope John Paul II. I just wonder. And I remind myself that God can use cracked pots. We really need to keep praying for him, because there is a lot of competition as far as “using” him…the vultures are circling. He truly needs our prayers.

  2. snowshoes says:

    Thanks again, Diane for an excellent analysis of this aspect of Laudato Si. I’ve enjoyed reading some of the links and references. There is so much to learn and understand about the UN and various government documents, and positions on sustainability, and of course, the sad and evil policies of many governments, such as the US and Chinese policies regarding the family and babies.
    On the question of the Pope’s position regarding all of this, I have a question. There is the principle of Philippians 4:8:
    Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

    And, is it possible that, as the Jesuits have been smarting ever since the pope ruled against them in the Chinese Rites Controversy, and sided with them wascawwy Dominicans, and thus “lost” China because the pope would not accept the Jesuit understanding that the ancestor veneration was an innocent custom not in opposition to the Catholic faith, that Pope Francis is bending over backward to include what he can of what the world powers have done so far on the care of the environment, in order to bring as many people as possible into the “conversation”? Remember, Our Lord touched the unclean lepers to heal them.

    Reading Diane’s excellent analysis of the UN documents on the environment, many aspects certainly seem leprous, and some practices involving abortion and forced sterilization are truly evil. But is Pope Francis trying to take the good he can find there and through the power of Our Lord Jesus, to transform, and “convert” the political reality? Us Catholics have to employ both our Dominican and Jesuit glasses when researching any situation. And could I be wrong? Of course, but to quote St. Peter, “to whom shall we go?” I think we got to stick with him.

    Now, Diane and Eliza, I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about me, but for me, the scariest of all the scary scripture passages is St. Mark 7:21 Wicked designs come from the deep recesses of the heart: acts of fornication, theft, murder, adulterous conduct, greed, maliciousness, deceit, sensuality, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, an obtuse spirit. All these evils come from within and render a man impure.

    The obtuse spirit reference scares me because if there is one thing that’s going to send me to hell it will be my obtuseness. It is very different from the other wickedness listed in the passage, and it is ubiquitous. If there is a one word summation in our modern culture of an obtuse spirit it is, “whatever”. So all I’m saying is that with my Dominican glasses Laudato Si is not ready for prime time, and fraught with all kinds of pitfalls, but with my Jesuit glasses, it may be the bait that the Pope can best use to reel in the biggest number of fish. Just a thought. Happy Feast of Santiago!!!

  3. Eliza10 says:

    Thanks, snowshoes, well put. I do very often think of Philippians 4:8, trying to focus on the positive with our new pope, and also I have thought that he must be trying to cast a wide net, and that is a good important thing we should all endeavor to do. And I will keep believing that’s probably it, while I put away things that alarm me, like what seems to be direct offenses to those dear to my heart, like nice faithful large Catholic families, or a heroic bishop that I admire, and while he SEEMS to be fellowshipping with flesh-eating sharks like those insistently pervasive “sustainability” folks. And I will hope that things are not what they seem, that he has God’s best interests in mind, that he is in obedience to a plan greater of God too big for my mind to fathom.

  4. Eliza10 says:

    “I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”
    ? John Henry Newman

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-