(LifeSiteNews) — Pope Leo XIV is celebrating the 10th anniversary of Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’ with a whole series of events in the coming months. Already, on September 5, 2025, he announced that the historic papal residence in Castel Gandolfo is henceforth to be known the “village” of “Borgo Laudato Si’,” supposedly bringing the encyclical’s vision of integral ecology to life by uniting faith, sustainability, and community life. A “Laudato Si’ Garden” has also made an appearance in Vatican City. Then, on October 1–3, he will open the Raising Hope Conference in Rome. The theme of the conference is the supposed ecological crisis, and how to achieve the U.N.’s goals laid out in COP30. This promises to be a largely secular event bringing together spiritual leaders, scientists, activists, and indigenous representatives. READ: Cardinal Turkson rebukes bishops and priests who continue to ‘deny climate change’ Pope Leo XIV has apparently bought into the notion that social justice requires ecological justice, and vice versa. This was the point of the video message to the Network of Universities for the Care of Our Common Home in Rio de Janeiro (May 21–24), encouraging synodal reflection on the interconnectedness of all things. He also celebrated the first Mass for the Care of Creation at Castel Gandolfo in July, urging Christians to take action to address the ecological crisis. The Pope said, in part, “We ask that you consider coming alongside us as we seek to honor Him with the gifts He has given us in the furtherance of a Biblical model of Earth stewardship, which glorifies Him and lifts His people out of both physical and spiritual poverty.” If that’s the goal, then I am all for it. But in order to get there, you can’t fudge the numbers, exaggerate the problem, and set up huge, wasteful, government programs that often perpetuate the very problems that you want to solve. There are endless examples of this, among them California Governor Gavin Newsom’s generously funded program to eliminate homelessness. Money was shoveled to leftist NGOs who – predictably – made the problem worse. They didn’t want the gravy train to end. The encyclical that Pope Leo is using as a guidebook is chock full of the kind of exaggerated claims that environmental radicals specialize in. This gives Laudato Si’ a dismal tone of environmental “apocalypse now,” as when it asserts that future generations will experience “debris, desolation and filth” (para. 161). Sections of the encyclical read like the discredited 1972 Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth, which predicted ecological, economic and societal collapse in the coming years. None of these doomsday scenarios have actually materialized, and there is little evidence that they will. Human ingenuity has historically averted resource collapses. All this is to say, Laudato Si’ contains numerous factual errors about the state of humanity and the state of the planet. These errors were already apparent when the encyclical was first issued, and are even more glaring now. The encyclical asserts (para. 46) that economic growth over the past two centuries “has not always led to … an improvement in the quality of life.” In fact, lifespans have more than doubled and incomes have risen well over a hundredfold. In 1815, humanity numbered about 1 billion and lived on average to the age of 30 on a meager per capita income of $100. Today we number 8.3 billion and enjoy an average lifespan of 73 and per capita GDP is $14,000. If this isn’t progress, what is? Laudato Si’ claims (paras. 29-30) that “the quality of available water is constantly diminishing” and poses a serious problem for the poor. But this is simply not true. The Millennium Development Goals 2014 Report states that access to improved drinking water sources reached 2.3 billion more people between 1990 and 2012, with 89 percent of the global population having access by 2012 (up from 76 percent in 1990), achieving the target five years early. READ: Pope Leo XIV warns ‘world is burning’ from ‘global warming’ at first ‘Care of Creation’ Mass And the progress continues. According to the most recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene, 74 percent of the global population used safely managed drinking water services in 2024, an improvement from 68 percent in 2015, with 961 million additional people gaining access to safely managed drinking water between 2015 and 2024. And 90 percent of the global population used at least basic drinking water services in 2022, up from 89 percent in 2012, as reported in the 2014 MDG report. The encyclical claims (para. 33) that “thousands of plant and animal species” are lost annually, mostly due to humans, and that future generations will never see them. But there is simply no evidence of massive extinctions. The Red List reports 150–200 extinctions since 2006, with approximately 10–15 extinctions annually in recent years for assessed species. This is a tiny fraction of the “thousands” claimed, which is based on radical environmentalist fabrications intended to alarm the public. While some species do face reduced habitats, the Convention on Biological Diversity – which is intended to create planetary nature preserves – has already met its goals. By 2020, 17.08 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas were protected, and thus the plant and animal species which live there are also protected. The encyclical describes the poor and vulnerable as “the majority of the planet’s population, billions of people” (para. 49). This claim also is not backed up by the evidence. The Millennium Development Goals 2014 Report showed extreme poverty in developing regions dropped from nearly half the population in 1990 to 22 percent by 2010, with the number of people in extreme poverty falling from 1.9 billion to 1.2 billion – achieving the U.N. target ahead of schedule. And the progress continues. By 2022, only 9.2 percent of the global population (729 million people) lived below the $2.15 per day poverty line, according to the World Bank’s Poverty and Inequality Platform (2023). Why exaggerate global inequality and poverty when extreme poverty is a fraction of what it once was? For all its faults, Laudato Si’ does get some things right. The Earth is our “common home” that we have an obligation to care for (para. 1), even though it is only our temporary home (para. 2). Few would disagree that humanity has a moral duty to protect God’s creation for current and future generations (para. 76). READ: Nova Scotia’s hiking ban sparks outrage, comparisons to COVID lockdowns I applaud Laudato Si’’s clear rejection of pantheistic or purely naturalistic views that divinize the Earth (para. 90), as many radical environmentalists do. Care for creation should be an act of worship to God, the encyclical rightly reasons, and not in any way an elevation of the Earth above human primacy and eternal purpose. But these important points are all but lost in a maze of ominous assertions about environmental devastation, rampant poverty, and declining quality of life, which sound like they were copied from the writings of Earth First or the Sierra Club. All of these cry out to be corrected. The larger point is this: you can’t align yourself with radical environmentalists and their ideas and expect prosperity and a reduction in poverty. It doesn’t work that way.

Editor’s note: The following article is a critical analysis of developments in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council by Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Marian Eleganti. (LifeSiteNews) — I was born in 1955 and was an enthusiastic altar boy in my childhood. At first I served in the old rite, always a little nervous not to mess up the Latin responses, then I was retrained in the middle of the action for the so-called New Mass. As a child, I witnessed the iconoclasm in the venerable Church of the Holy Cross in my hometown. The Gothic carved altars were torn down before my child eyes. What remained was a people’s altar, an empty choir room, the cross in the choir arch, Mary and St. John on the left and right on white bare walls. New stained glass windows flooded with the rising sun in the east. Nothing more: it was an unprecedented clear-cutting. We children found everything normal and appropriate, and diligently saved for the new stone floor in order to make our contribution to the reform or renovation of the church. The euphoria of the council was carried everywhere by the priests, synods were convened, in which I myself participated as a teenager. I had absolutely no idea what was going on. READ: Pope Leo XIV needs to correct the many errors of Laudato Si’: Here’s why As a 20-year-old novice, I experienced firsthand – and painfully – the liturgical tensions between the traditionalists and progressives among the reformers. New ecclesiastical professions were introduced, such as that of the (mostly married) pastoral assistant. I remember my critical comments on this, because the slowly dawning tensions and problems between the ordained and the non-ordained were foreseeable from the outset. The decline in the number of candidates for the priesthood was predictable and soon became apparent. As a young man, I was unreservedly supportive of the council, and later I studied its documents with faithful confidence. Nevertheless, since the age of 20, I have noticed a number of things: the desacralization of the choir room, the priesthood, and the Holy Eucharist, as well as the reception of Communion, and the ambiguity of some passages in the council documents. As a young layman who was still uneducated in theology, I noticed all of this very early on. Even though the priesthood had been the strongest option in my heart since childhood, I was not ordained a priest until I was 40. I grew up with the council, came of age, and was able to observe its effects since it took place. Today I am 70 years old and a bishop. Looking back, I have to say that the springtime of the Church never came; what came instead was an indescribable decline in the practice and knowledge of the faith, widespread liturgical formlessness and arbitrariness (to which I myself contributed in part without realizing it). From today’s perspective, I view everything with increasing criticism, including the council, whose texts most people have already left behind, always invoking its spirit. What has not been confused with the Holy Spirit and attributed to Him in the past 60 years? What has been called “life” that did not bring life, but rather dissolved it? The so-called reformers wanted to rethink the Church’s relationship to the world, reorganize the liturgy, and reevaluate moral positions. They are still doing so. The characteristic feature of their reform is fluidity in doctrine, morality, and liturgy, alignment with secular standards, and post-conciliar, ruthless disruption with everything that has gone before. For them, the Church is primarily what it has been since 1969 (Editio Typica Ordo Missae. Cardinal Benno Gut). What came before can be neglected or has already been revised. There is no going back. The most revolutionary among the reformers were always aware of their revolutionary acts. But their post-conciliar reform, their processes, have failed – across the board. They were not inspired. The people’s altar is not an invention of the Council Fathers. I myself celebrate Holy Mass in the New Rite, even privately. However, due to my apostolic activity, I have relearned the old liturgy of my childhood and see the difference, especially in the prayers and postures, and of course in the orientation. READ: A little-known Marian devotion to Our Lady of Tindari could help us in these dark times In retrospect, the post-conciliar intervention in the almost 2,000-year-old, very consistent form of the liturgy seems to me to be a rather violent, provisional reconstruction of the Holy Mass in the years following the conclusion of the council, which was associated with great losses that need to be addressed. This was also done for ecumenical reasons. Many forces, including from the Protestant side, were directly involved in this effort to align the traditional liturgy with the Protestant Eucharist and perhaps also with the Jewish Sabbath liturgy. This was done in an elitist, disruptive, and reckless manner by the Roman Liturgical Commission and was imposed on the entire Church by Paul VI, not without causing major fractures and rifts in the mystical body of Christ, which remain to this day. One thing is certain for me: if you can tell a tree by its fruit, a ruthless and truthful reassessment of the post-conciliar liturgical reform is urgently needed: historically honest and meticulous, non-ideological and open, like the new generation of young believers who neither know nor read the council texts. They also have no problem with nostalgia because they only know the Church in its present form. They are simply too young to be traditionalists. However, they have experienced how parishes function today, how they celebrate liturgy, and what remains of their own religious socialization through the parish: very little! For this reason, they are not progressives either. From today’s perspective, liberal Catholicism or progressivism since the 1970s, most recently in the guise of the Synodal Way, has had its day and has driven the Church into a dead end. The frustration is correspondingly great. We can see it everywhere. Sunday and weekday services are attended mainly by old people. Young people are missing, except in a few church hotspots, which are few and far between. The reform is taking care of itself because no one goes there anymore or reads the results, an iron law. How can the post-conciliar reform still be viewed so uncritically and narrow-mindedly at this point in time, measured by its fruits? Why is an honest examination of tradition and our own (Church) history still not possible? Why do people not want to see that we are at a crossroads and should take stock, especially liturgically? To be or not to be in terms of faith and Church life is decided on the basis of liturgy. This is where the church lives or dies. Traditionalists and progressives have correctly assessed this since 1965. So why is tradition on the rise among young people? What makes it so attractive to young people? Think about it! Feet vote, not councils. Maybe we should just change direction! Do you understand?

(LifeSiteNews) — In an age when speaking the truth can put your life at risk, Catholics are called to be both courageous and spiritually prepared. The recent shooting of Charlie Kirk reminds us that proclaiming Christ’s love and truth in public is dangerous. Death threats, harassment, and violence are becoming the cost of discipleship. But we are not alone. When Pope St. John Paul II was shot in St. Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981 — the feast of Our Lady of Fatima — he was wearing the brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. As he lay bleeding, he insisted that doctors not remove the scapular during surgery. For him, it wasn’t just a devotional item — it was a sign of protection, a pledge of belonging to Mary, and a source of strength in the face of death. The brown scapular is more than a piece of cloth. It is a sacramental, a visible sign of an invisible reality: the maternal care of the Blessed Virgin Mary for those who entrust themselves to her. Tradition holds that Our Lady gave the scapular to St. Simon Stock in 1251. Her words to him as she gave him the scapular: “Receive, my dearly beloved son, this scapular of thy order, the symbol of my confraternity, and a privilege for you and for all Carmelites. Whosoever dies clothed in this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire … It shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger, a pledge of peace and our everlasting alliance.” A garment of grace Wearing the brown scapular is a sign of consecration to Mary and a commitment to live a life of prayer, purity, and devotion. It is not a “magic charm” but a powerful spiritual aid for those who strive to live in friendship with God. Among the graces associated with the scapular are: Mary’s special protection in life and at the hour of death A deeper union with Christ through Mary The promise of final perseverance for those who live faithfully Participation in the prayers and merits of the Carmelite Order A recommendation for those in danger In times of war, persecution, illness, or uncertainty, many saints and faithful Catholics have turned to the scapular as a spiritual shield. Whether you are entering a dangerous mission field, facing a serious illness, or simply navigating the spiritual dangers of modern life, the scapular is a reminder that you are not alone. If you are stepping into a position of risk — physically, morally, or spiritually — wear the scapular. Let it be a sign of your trust in Mary’s intercession and your desire to remain close to Christ. Enroll and wear it worthily To receive the full spiritual benefits, one must be enrolled in the brown scapular by a priest. After that, any scapular can be worn and replaced as needed. In the words of St. John Paul II: “The scapular is essentially a ‘habit.’ Those who receive it are thereby associated with the Carmelite Order … and consecrated in a special way to the Blessed Virgin Mary.”