AmericanPapist Comments
Thanks, Thomas! I, too, thought the comment about the vestments was ridiculous, at best.
Of course, it was much more. The element of stewardship of creation was an element the Holy Father embedded in his talk/homily due to the environmental aspect of the gathering - the program books were made of recycled paper, etc. The homily had at its heart, the challenge to live our Christian faith day to day and to apply its teachings to every aspect of life. As always, he issues a forceful and unabashed challenge to young people to cast aside fear and walk forward in trust believing that God has a plan for their life.
If only we could hear the "real" message in the secular press!
That means about 93.7% of the homily was fluff?
Okaaayyy.
Just out of curiosity --
Does the Pope usually wear vestments that match the proper liturgical color of the time?
I seem to remember JP the Great always wearing either white or gold, but that might just be how I choose to remember.
No question, though, Pope Benedict is wearing GREEN. Ain't gonna forget that vestment anytime soon.
We once again have cause to quote Shakespeare's epitaph for this age:
"O shame, where is thy blush?"
Hello. It seems I commented on your comments quoted at another blog, but since I've found the source, I'll say it again.
"Where man's interest and nature's interest conflict - man comes first."
I believe the Lord say something about those who want to put themselves first...
I also wonder what brassband wonders. A quick google reveals that the pope almost never wears green, and lets face it, the Loreto vestments were particularly bright and beautiful. It looks like a statement to me. What's so wrong about that? Why so much scorn over a reporter's error (if it is entirely an error)? Where's the charity?
Well, first of all, it is God who put man "first" before nature.
Pope JP2 wore really green vestments (http://www.123posters.com/images/famous/p-
johnpaul2a.jpg), so? He wore appropriate liturgical attire which symbolizes far more than eco-awareness.
And there isn't scorn here, there's legitimate annoyance at reporting which is either a) grossly ignorant or b) intentionally misleading.
What's the point of being "first" in Creation? It sounds a bit like the head slave lording it over the lower slaves.
I wouldn't call not knowing a tiny detail about the Catholic liturgy "grossly ignorant." The faith does not hang on the colour of a priest's chasuble. Why not be indignant over the pollution of rivers that people have to drink out of?
Not knowing a little liturgical detail does not make one grossly ignorant, but not checking into the reason, and assuming that it matches one's own agenda instead, is not terribly good journalism. OTOH maybe these goofball journalists are beginning to like our Papa and are finding reasons to help their "coreligionists" to find him more acceptable. Maybe...
Taking the pope out of context can lead those who are less-informed to adopt un-Catholic views. While there is a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, it is not to be done at the expense of human justice. "Putting man first" is simply recognizing the hierarchy God created in his creatures. He made the earth, then the plants, then the animals, then man, whom he created in His own likeness and image. People are more sacred than animals because they are God's crowning creation. That's why it is okay to kill a cow to eat it, but it is not okay to kill a human for the same purpose. One respects the hierarchy of creation and the other doesn't.
So was it the earth, the plants, or the animals who are responsible for the Fall? Hmmm...
Considering that we are entirely dependend on nature for our physical survival, it's hard to imagine that being good stewards of this planet could ever violate social justice. That is, assuming "social justice" is not code for "having as much stuff as we want."
The proposals of the Sierra club and other environmental groups for population control are very detrimental to human life and dignity,as well as the environment, and they claim this is necessary for the 'good' of the planet.(Birth control pills and other hormone therapies are polluting the rivers and malforming fish, so that they are unable to reproduce. What is it doing to the health of the humans who drink this hormone-laced water?)
Since when do Christians propose that having as much stuff as possible is the goal of our life on earth? That gospel is the gospel of the secularists and of the greenies, since they propose that they themselves continue to live the life of modern civilization and everyone else has to do without for the 'good' of the planet. Which gospels have you been reading?
Also, the earth does not have an eternal soul, unlike men. Justice for humans does involve not polluting the environment. But CO2 is not harmful and is not a pollutant. In fact it is an essential molecule for all life on earth. That is the crux of the Christian objection to proposals to mandate reductions in CO2 emissions. It is an injustice because it wastes money and causes hardship, and if the Sierra Club has its way, would cause the deaths of many millions through abortion.
Commenting by HaloScan
