![\"MudVolcano2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/06\/MudVolcano2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n(6-20-15)<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Genesis 1:28<\/b> (RSV)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>And God blessed them, and God said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ownership of material goods, entitling the owner to proprietary rights, i.e., to use, change, keep, or dispose of what one owns. Christianity views dominion as not absolute, but always relative to the common good of society.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 67. We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man \u201cdominion\u201d over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God\u2019s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. The biblical texts are to be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us to \u201ctill and keep\u201d the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). \u201cTilling\u201d refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while \u201ckeeping\u201d means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations. \u201cThe earth is the Lord\u2019s\u201d (Ps 24:1); to him belongs \u201cthe earth with all that is within it\u201d (Dt 10:14). Thus God rejects every claim to absolute ownership: \u201cThe land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me\u201d (Lev25:23).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We do not understand our superiority <\/b>as a reason for personal glory or irresponsible dominion, but rather as a different capacity which, in its turn, entails a serious responsibility stemming from our faith. [220; my bolding]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The passage above about dominion makes it crystal clear that man is \u201cabove\u201d the other creatures of the earth; having dominion over<\/i> them. There is no difference here at all with historic biblical, Catholic theology. But if a cynical, reactionary mind like Ferrara\u2019s wishes to invent <\/i>one, according to his erroneous preconceived opinions, it is always easy to state <\/i>a falsehood without demonstrating<\/i> it (as he does throughout his piece). He engages in extended soliloquies of his own fancies and imaginary myths, while I prefer to stick to documentation from the actual text<\/i>, and citations of it, with commentary; along with relevant biblical citations. The same (analogously) is done with environmentalism. The radical \u201cecclesiological right\u201d assumes that left-wing zealots completely own<\/i> that discussion and that there is no such thing as a Christian, biblical, legitimate environmentalism or conservationism. That just ain\u2019t so, either. Newsflash: Jesus is Lord of all <\/i>of life, and that includes care of the earth and its natural resources<\/i>. Pope Francis has done us all a great service by engaging in the entire discussion under the grand framework of biblical \/ Christian premises and assumptions and categories. He \u201cunsecularizes\u201d the conversation. It will never be the same again, for anyone who takes this encyclical seriously. By contrast, I carefully read the entire encyclical before making my commentary on it, complete with many extended citations, from the official English document, posted on the Holy See website<\/a>. \u00a0<\/p>\n Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat \u2014 1 Corinthians 3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not to mention the Bible itself . . . \u00a0Has Ferrara read that<\/i> all the way through (I did, 37 years ago)? Did he not suffer through the usually remarked-upon dry legal passages of Leviticus, or all the \u201cbegats\u201d? Or how about reading in the two books of Chronicles, basically the same thing that was already recorded in 1 and 2 Kings? The four Gospels overlap, for heaven\u2019s sake! Would Ferrara go after <\/span><\/span>them<\/i>, too, for unnecessary length and reiteration?<\/span><\/span> I always say that people manage to spend\u00a0plenty<\/i> of time in front of the idiot box or reading 500-page novels (many of dubious value, to put it mildly). They\u2019ll study reams and reams of materials in college, to prepare for their vocation \/ occupation. But when it comes to God<\/i>, all of a sudden we are supposed to dumb down and read only short things. Why should the Holy Father\u00a0bow to the short attention spans and the sad \u201csound-byte\u201d \/ Twitter reality of today?\u00a0\u00a0His general audience addresses are short, if someone must have brevity. Different strokes . . .\u00a0It\u2019s much ado about nothing: what is called obfuscation or obscurantism.<\/span> He cites, undocumented, a portion of the \u201cleaked\u201d document: The human being, even supposing evolutionary processes, involves a novelty not fully explainable by\u00a0<\/span>the evolution of other open systems<\/i>. Every one of us has in himself a personal identity able to enter into dialogue with others and with God Himself. The capacity for reflection, reasoning, creativity, interpretation, artistic elaboration, and other original capacities demonstrate a singularity that transcends the realm of the physical and biological. The qualitative novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within the material universe presupposes a direct action of God, a peculiar calling to life and to the relation of a Thou to another thou.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Presumably, this is some version (from who knows where?) of what the official <\/i>Vatican document translates as follows:<\/p>\n 81. Human beings, even if we postulate a process of evolution, also possess a uniqueness which cannot be fully explained by the evolution of other open systems. Each of us has his or her own personal identity and is capable of entering into dialogue with others and with God himself. Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology. The sheer novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within a material universe presupposes a direct action of God and a particular call to life and to relationship on the part of a \u201cThou\u201d who addresses himself to another \u201cthou\u201d. The biblical accounts of creation invite us to see each human being as a subject who can never be reduced to the status of an object.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note the difference in the first sentence (\u201cnovelty\u201d vs. \u201cuniqueness\u201d). Remember the old debate about \u201cliberal\u201d translations of the Vatican II documents? It\u2019s deliciously humorous that now, radical Catholic reactionary Ferrara does the same thing: citing a non-official \u201cleaked\u201d translation of an official papal document, rather than exercising the supreme patience of waiting all of a day, or two at the most, to get the Real Thing<\/i>. Ironies never cease, among the endlessly foolish reactionaries.<\/p>\n Ferrara makes one of his more remarkably ludicrous assertions in response to this portion:<\/p>\n It does nothing of the sort. Let\u2019s tackle these fathomless imbecilities one-by-one. The argument over the lack of the word \u201csoul\u201d is a (to me, quite comical) version of the old Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses \u201cargument\u201d that the Bible doesn\u2019t contain the word \u201cTrinity.\u201d Indeed it doesn\u2019t. But is the concept <\/i>there? Absolutely!\u00a0I have pages and pages of trinitarian passages from he Bible in two of my books. The term \u201cvirgin birth\u201d is not in the Bible, either. \u201cMagisterium\u201d isn\u2019t there; nor is \u201cpope\u201d or \u201cBlessed Virgin Mary\u201d or \u201csacred heart\u201d or \u201cimmaculate conception\u201d or \u201cecumenical council\u201d or \u201ctransubstantiation\u201d or \u201cAssumption\u201d [of Mary] or a host of other good Catholic terms.<\/p>\n Likewise, the concept of the soul<\/i> is found in several places in this encyclical, when the Holy Father discusses man made in the image of God (see sections 65, 67, and 84), or the notions of human uniqueness among creatures, as seen in section 81 above and often elsewhere. What the pope states in section 81 is perfectly consistent with St. Thomas Aquinas\u2019 statement about the soul in his Summa Theologica<\/i>:<\/p>\n The rational soul can be made only by creation; which, however, is not true of other forms. The reason is because, since to be made is the way to existence, a thing must be made in such a way as is suitable to its mode of existence. Now that properly exists which itself has existence; as it were, subsisting in its own existence. Wherefore only substances are properly and truly called beings; whereas an accident has not existence, but something is (modified) by it, and so far is it called a being; for instance, whiteness is called a being, because by it something is white. Hence it is said Metaph. vii, Did. vi, 1 that an accident should be described as \u201cof something rather than as something.\u201d The same is to be said of all non-subsistent forms. Therefore, properly speaking, it does not belong to any non-existing form to be made; but such are said to be made through the composite substances being made. On the other hand, the rational soul is a subsistent form, as above explained (75, 2). Wherefore it is competent to be and to be made. And since it cannot be made of pre-existing matter\u2013whether corporeal, which would render it a corporeal being\u2013or spiritual, which would involve the transmutation of one spiritual substance into another, we must conclude that it cannot exist except by creation. (I, q. 90, a. 2c<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>. . . Pope Francis attempts to fashion yet another post-conciliar novelty in the Church: a call to \u201cecological conversion,\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>This is no novelty at all. In fact, it is such<\/i> an old-fashioned, non-novel Christian worldview that it hearkens all the way back to Genesis and Adam and Eve:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>The crux of the \u201cissue\u201d in many ways, is what \u201cdominion\u201d means. The pope has given us an extended treatise on that very thing, and many others. This entails ecology or environmentalism: stewardship over God\u2019s creation. The staunchly orthodox, saintly Fr. John A. Hardon, in his Modern Catholic Dictionary<\/a><\/i>, defined \u201cdominion\u201d as follows:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>See that last part? Applied to Genesis 1:28, it means that man\u2019s dominion is \u201cnot absolute\u201d but rather, integrated into the common good of society (and by extension here, the earth). This is not a new thing in Catholicism, but a very old thing in man\u2019s existence. The pope deals forthrightly with these fundamental aspects of Christian environmentalism and stewardship:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>which requires a subtle demotion of man to merely a part of the natural world.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>This is sheer nonsense. The \u201csuperiority\u201d of man is casually assumed:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/b>. . . an Orthodox Archbishop by the name of John Zizioulas, representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, who\u2014don\u2019t you know?\u2014is very big on environmentalism.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>Of course he is, because it is a Christian responsibility to be good stewards of the earth : God\u2019s creation and gift to us. Why is this perceived as a bad <\/i>thing? It\u2019s similar to the radical Catholic reactionary (and, too often, mainstream traditionalist) jaded view of ecumenism. They take the worst examples of corruptions of it (liberal indifferentism and religious relativism) and collapse that into the supposed entire<\/i> (or orthodox) meaning of the word ecumenism<\/i>. It just ain\u2019t so. But they continue doing it, as part of their own isolated, self-absorbed, warped pseudo-tradition.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/b>Yesterday I completed the task of slogging my way through the Italian \u201cdraft\u201d of this 185-page book-length excuse to tie the Church\u2019s credibility to eco-fascism and the global warming scam, which appears to be identical to the final document released today. As the world knows, Sandro Magister leaked the \u201cdraft\u201d to the press two days ago at the cost of his Vatican press credentials.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>Isn\u2019t it interesting that Ferrara has no qualms whatsoever about reading a mere \u201cdraft\u201d (in Italian) of the encyclical, that he himself openly states was leaked. He\u2019s very transparent, indeed brazen, about it. But why, I wonder, would any serious commentator do such a stupid thing? He couldn\u2019t wait another day<\/i> or two before opening his big mouth and proceeding to trash the caricature of the straw man that he creates of the document? Is this some juvenile desire to be \u201cfirst\u201d or something?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>Ferrara published a \u201csummary\u201d<\/a> of his hostile analysis at Lifesite News<\/i>. Time-permitting, perhaps I will critique that as well, in due course. Now, for those of you who wonder why I have urged folks to avoid this website, here is a prime example. It publishes the bilge of one of the most notorious radical Catholic reactionaries, trashing the pope. That alone is grounds for any orthodox, obedient Catholic to ignore Lifesite News<\/i> altogether. With all the alternative news and theological sources out there, you don\u2019t need to patronize a venue that sees nothing wrong whatsoever in Ferrara\u2019s radical reactionary analysis. It spreads poison and cancer in the Body of Christ.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>. . .\u00a0<\/span>the massively verbose Vatican documents of the post-conciliar epoch, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>This is a plainly empty-headed remark. Who cares about length? I could document many examples of the <\/span><\/span>Remnant<\/i>\u2018s own hyper-verbosity, but anyone can check that out for themselves. Surely, our era is not unique in terms of prolixity, nor in nuanced or \u201cdifficult-to-read\u201d expression. To give but one historical example, how about St. Thomas Aquinas\u2019 13th century five-volume <\/span><\/span>Summa Theologica<\/i>? He considered that to be merely an <\/span><\/span>introductory<\/i> work of theology. He wrote at the very beginning<\/a> of it:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nYet to today\u2019s reader it appears almost impossibly complex; so much so that several recent attempts have been made to summarize or abridge or selectively quote it (I undertook<\/span><\/span><\/span> one such effort, myself).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nI have found that those who complain about length of other writings, invariably engage in long, long pieces of writing, themselves<\/i>. I often observed this with regard to anti-Catholic opponents. They would critique my \u201cverbose\u201d writing, and proceed to write, \u2014 unashamed and blissfully unaware \u2013, tedious, boorish tomes of four, five times greater length. I concluded that such complaints (due to the double standard) were in fact, almost wholly reflective of their underlying hostility<\/i> to a given document. If they agreed<\/i> with it, such remarks would never be made. But since they don\u2019t, they complain about mere length<\/i>.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>Depth is not to be frowned upon. It\u2019s not an \u201ceither\/or\u201d scenario. People need to stretch their intellectual and spiritual horizons, too, and be challenged.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>I would like to focus on one of the most troubling aspects of what we all expected would be yet another eruption of a Vesuvius that has been burying everything in its path with rhetorical lava over the past two-and-a-half years.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span>Now here is a prime (textbook, classic) instance of the very thing he (unjustly) complains about. He condemns supposed \u201crhetorical lava\u201d in Pope Francis, yet engages in it himself<\/i>, with this abjectly idiotic, sophistical remark. In fact, I would characterize pretty much his entire hit-piece<\/i> as \u201crhetorical lava\u201d (or much worse<\/i>, but we are in mixed company).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n