NEW Website Coming:  Days |  Hours |  Minutes |  Seconds

  1. Happy Easter

  2. Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

  3. New Site Coming

  4. On Borrowed Time


It's Eco-Easter at the Vatican!

by Christopher A. Ferrara
March 23, 2016

It’s Holy Week in Eastertide, and what could be more appropriate to the holiest week of the Church’s liturgical calendar than what the Vatican has planned as reported by Catholic News Service: “several initiatives highlighting the importance of ecology and the care for creation.”  Yes, the religion of environmentalism now insinuates itself even into the Easter celebrations.

One of these “initiatives” has to be among the most laughable of the publicity stunts the Vatican propaganda machine has come up with over the past three years of the “hope and change” pontificate. Believe it or not, “the thousands of floral arrangements for the Easter morning Mass and the pope’s solemn blessing ‘urbi et orbi’ (to the city and to the world), will be repurposed after the celebrations” by being ‘replanted in the Vatican gardens.’”

According to the Vatican Governorate, the administrative organization of the Vatican City state, “Thousands of bushes, flowering trees, tulips and other flowering bulbs, which are a gift of growers in the Netherlands, will be replanted in the Vatican gardens. The plants also will be distributed to various pontifical colleges and institutions ‘so that they may bloom in the coming years’…”

As my dear wife has pointed out, being an experienced gardener, this stunt is a huge waste of resources that has nothing to do with “care for creation.” First of all, those thousands of bushes, flowering trees, tulips and other flowering bulbs, produced specially by professional growers for the Vatican’s use and requiring vast amounts of soil, fertilizer,  water and manpower, had to be uprooted from wherever they were grown in the Netherlands, specially packaged or wrapped in materials it required energy to produce, which packing material will then be thrown away, and finally transported by carbon-spewing aircraft or trucks into Italy and ultimately the Vatican.  The replanting will also require vast amounts of water, fertilizer and manpower, as well as constant maintenance of the entire stock, much of which will die immediately or after a season or two.

The whole operation — from uprooting to packaging, from transport to replanting, and the constant maintenance of what survives replanting — will produce a “carbon footprint” far larger than what would have resulted from simply having left the plants where they were in the Netherlands, using local florists to supply plants for the Easter solemnities, and then simply discarding the plants after Easter week. That customary procedure would at least illustrate one of the lessons of the religion Christ founded as opposed to the religion of the Sierra Club. To recall the teaching of the first Pope, alluding to the prophet Isaiah: “For all flesh is as grass; and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass is withered, and the flower thereof is fallen away. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever… (1 Pet. 1:24-25).” 

Not on your life!  The Vatican is going to keep these plants alive as long as possible. Now that’s showing “care for creation.” But what about demanding an immediate end to the worldwide mass murder of human beings in the womb?  Wouldn’t that be “caring for creation,” seeing that men are God’s highest earthly creation, whose immortal souls do not wither away like tulips?  Hint: the ecological creed has nothing to do with people, only things.  The Vatican is not very concerned with the fate of people these days, unless they are Muslim “refugees” or the victims of “inequality.”  As for their immortal souls?  Not so much.

Another eco-Easter “initiative” inviting derision — which I am happy to supply — is described thus: “Heeding the pope’s call to care for the environment, the governorate also announced the inauguration of an ‘ecological island,’ a recycling center for the separate disposal of waste and compost.”

So the Vatican will finally set up a recycling center, about forty years after the rest of Europe discovered the idea. Ah, but this one is an “ecological island.”  Big difference.  Is this a joke?  If only it were.

But one of these eco-Easter initiatives, already accomplished on March 19, invites not derision but contempt. We read: “The cupola of St. Peter’s Basilica and Bernini’s famed colonnade will also go dark March 19 for one hour in an effort to promote climate change awareness. The Vatican announced it will join countries around the world in turning off non-essential lights for ‘Earth Hour 2016,’ an event promoted by the World Wildlife Fund International. The initiative, according to the fund​’s website, is meant as ‘a symbol of their commitment to the planet.’”

So, the Bergoglian Vatican is “committed to the planet” — so much so that the lights of Saint Peter’s will go dark for an hour.  Wow.  That ought to bring the world back from the brink of eco-catastrophe.

There will be no going dark, however, to commemorate all the Christians murdered by Muslim fanatics in the Middle East, Africa, and now in the very heart of Europe — as Francis demands the unlimited “welcoming” of young male Muslim “refugees.” 

I will leave the final comment on the continuing travesty of the Vatican’s “ecological conversion” to Antonio Socci, who has had quite enough of this nonsense.  As he declared to Francis in his open letter to the Pope in La Profezia Finale:

[H]ow is it possible that you do not notice and do not indicate other emergencies than those of the climate, or at least with equal insistence? The apostasy of entire peoples from the faith of the true God is not a drama that merits your most ardent appeals?  The war against the family and against life? The neglect of Christ and the massacre of Christian communities? It seems that only the environment and other themes of the religion of political correctness merit your passion. 

A great French intellectual, Alain Finkielkraut, has described you as “Supreme Pontiff of the world journalistic ideology.”  Is he wrong? Does he exaggerate?

In effect, in “your” Church it seems that the themes of separating refuse and recycling take precedence over the tragedy of entire peoples who, in the turn of a few years, have abandoned the faith.

You sound the alarm over “global warming” while the Church for two millennia has sounded it concerning the fire of Hell (p. 142).

Yes, the fire of Hell. Our Lady of Fatima had something to show and tell about that. But the Message of Fatima has no place on the Bergoglian agenda, although for one hopeful moment I thought that it did.  Perhaps Heaven itself will soon take action that will prompt Francis to give the Message of Fatima the attention it deserves. We can only pray that that moment will not involve a half-ruined city filled with the dead — people, not plants — and a Pope who is executed outside that city, on a darkling hill.