It’s official. Catholicism = socialism

by Brad Nelson   11/27/13

Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism:

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis called Tuesday for renewal of the Roman Catholic Church and attacked unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny,” urging global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in the first major work he has written alone as pontiff.

The 84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, amounted to an official platform for his papacy, building on views he has aired in sermons and remarks since becoming the first non-European pontiff in 1,300 years in March.

The pope went further than in previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the “idolatry of money” and beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens “dignified work, education and health care.”

He also called on rich people to share their wealth.

“Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and in­equality. Such an economy kills,” Francis wrote in the document.

My instincts on this guy proved to be correct again. Pope Francis is just another PC clown. An indoctrinated fool. Maybe we should be kind and just call him a low-information Pope.

Capitalism (the free market, along with political freedom) has done more to pull people out of poverty than anything else. No other method even comes close.
__________________________________________________
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (3417 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to It’s official. Catholicism = socialism

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I would use social democracy rather than socialism, which theoretically means public (i.e. government) ownership of the means of production (which he doesn’t call for). Critics have pointed out that Francis came up in Peronist Argentina, which his views seem to reflect.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I wouldn’t, Timothy. Catholics (and others) are long-practiced in getting around the nasty little truth that we are talking about socialism. “Social democracy” is just a euphemism.

  2. Kung Fu Zu says:

    I want to know who translated the document and give others time to go over the translation and see if the translation is correct.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Agnostic is a term invented by Thomas Henry Huxley. And as with all terms invented by intellectuals, it should be viewed with suspicion.

    “Agnostic” is a term that often has derisive implications. It’s the domain of the doubter, the fence-sitter, and perhaps even the perfectionist.

    But it’s not a category that denies the possibility of God. I didn’t read four biographies of St. Francis just because I was entranced with the man. There have been plenty of far more interesting men throughout history. My interested was piqued because here was a man, if any man can said to be, who is proof of the idea that there is more to life than meets the eye.

    And what that all boils down to — backed up by the words of Jesus himself — is that the place to store up our treasures is not on earth. This can be interpreted in many ways (particularly what heaven is). But what is indisputable is that any valid conception of the Judeo-Christian belief and ethical system places primary emphasis on other than worldly concerns. And both Jesus and Francis validate this idea in their decided non-emphasis on material wealth. In fact, both emphasized that a kind of worldly poverty was the way to spiritual truths. (“If you desire to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor…and come, follow me.”)

    This, however, is not the message of this Leftist Pope. His emphasis is not on Christianity as a spiritual pursuit. He has reduced it to a mere poverty program. And like many useful idiots of our time, he is bashing capitalism over the head and blaming it for things that are the fault of men, not markets.

    It is thus that I bid adieu to whatever affinity I had for Catholicism. My journey toward God, if he exists in any form that matters, still continues. But it is not superstition or warmed-over, half-baked economic theories that I am in pursuit of. Catholicism, like the Democrat Party, needs desperately to reform itself…again.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    In a somewhat related article: Popes vs. Jews by Bruce Bawer

    Critical though he is of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Meotti allows himself to hold out hope for the current Vicar of Christ, who, he notes, has “celebrated Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah in synagogues, voiced solidarity with Jewish victims of Iranian terrorism and co-written a book with a rabbi, Avraham Skorka.” Just this week, the American Jewish Committee praised Pope Francis’s affirmation of Catholic-Jewish relations in his first Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). Meotti worries, however, that even under a personally philosemitic pontiff, the Vatican will persist in its tendency “to drive a wedge between the ‘good’ and docile Jews of the Diaspora and the ‘bad’ and arrogant Jews of Israel.”

    His concern may be well-founded. And there’s another reason to hold the applause: as one recent commentator approvingly put it, Francis is “more relaxed than his predecessor about the threat that the Muslim faithful represent to Roman Catholicism.” In September, the pontiff sent off a chummynote to the Great Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo expressing his “respect” for Islam. And in his Apostolic Exhortation, he warns against “hateful generalisations” about the Religion of Peace. How genuinely and meaningfully friendly can a Pope be to Jews and Israel, one wonders, when he seems bent on playing “let’s pretend” about Islam and overlooking the virulent Jew-hatred that’s preached and taught at places like Al-Azhar?

    The rest of the article is good as well.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Pope Francis seems to be a very well-meaning man who simply makes the key mistake of taking liberal pronouncements at face value. Unfortunately, his delusion hurts far more people than just himself.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        My older brother recommended a book that I have not yet read: Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It). One of the Amazon reviewers sums it up thus:

        Secondly, the author re-calibrates the basic philosophy of good charity being learning to take the oath of compassionate service. Such an oath puts the development of the recipient’s potential as primary, and the fulfilment of the giver’s emotions as secondary.

        This is undoubtedly related to what Dennis Prager says about people being “nice” but not good. JPII (if you read that article) was very “nice” to Yassar Arafat. But the truth is, regarding the whole Islam/Jewish question, he was not good. Nor is this Pope Francis good in terms of advocating ideas, policies, and moral that actually work to help people.

        The world is full of “nice” but not good people. It would appear that the pope is one of them. But he is hardly alone.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    Ed Morrissey (a Catholic who attended the election of the new pope) has a short piece on HotAir on the papal statement in which he argues that liberals cherry-picked for a few lines that sounded good to them, ignoring such details as a rejection of collectivism and acceptance of business as a noble vocation if the businessman is as concerned about customers and workers aw his personal profit.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Yes, I keep reading a lot of apologists for the Pope. But one of these days we’re just going to have to face up to the fact that this man is a product of socialist Argentina and a product of the extremely liberal Jesuit clan. As one fellow at American Thinker said in response to an apologist article, “Pope Francis is the Obama of the Catholic Church.”

      One writer summed it up nicely:

      No matter how the author tries to spin it, the Pope is an Argentinian socialist/liberation theologian. Argentina is a socialist country so if anything has damaged his country creating two extreme classes it is socialism, not capitalism. Why he is not “exhorting” socialism which has created the MOST misery and the MOST destruction is obvious: he does not understand how capitalism works.

      Another commentor put it even more bluntly:

      The Jesuits are nut ball commies and the country of the popes birth and upbringing is an example of the cess pool that Catholicism has brought in South America

      Protestant Christianity gave rise to the United States of America and Canada

      Every major city in the US dominated by Catholic populations are the centers of corruption and Democrat machines

      Address points of fact and stop trying to attack people

      Your infallible leader needs two weeks of mess cleaning after each statement

      And apparently there is a Catholic on that thread willing to face the truth:

      First of all, as a catholic, I am not defending what the pope said. You would think someone in his position could articulate clearly and not need others to clarify what he has said. What he has said, from what I have read, includes jibberish, and leads me to believe he does not understand capitalism nor the self interests of those in government. He is not infallible in economic matters.

      And one brave commentor, who is not afraid to see what she sees, said:

      I am a Catholic and Feral is correct. The Catholic Church was infiltrated and undermined by progressives just like every other institution. The pope no longer holds Catholic doctrine nor does any of the hierarchy. They might be nominally Christian but they are most definitely not Catholic and his pronouncements are jokes. Anyone willing to do the slightest bit of research can ascertain this for themselves. We have not had a Catholic pope for over seven decades.

      • Pst4usa says:

        She may not be afraid to see what she sees Brad, but 70 plus years? That means that the Pope that was in place during WWII and had a real problem speaking out against the holocaust was a good Catholic? The guy Bonhoeffer did not have good things to say about? Maybe I am remembering things wrong here, but I do not think that Pope, (Pious II I think), was very courageous. The whole neutrality thing, Catholic churches were providing sanctuary for some Jews, but I have read it was not sanctioned by the Pope. Could be a bad rap against him, I am not sure.
        I just saw the date on this, I may be a little late to this party.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          As best I can tell, Pope Pius XI was heavily maligned by anti-papists after the war. Jews at the time honored him for his quiet support. Note that as a top Vatican official, Eugenio Pacelli (the later Pope Pius) issued a 1938 condemnation of Nazi Germany, Mit Brennender Sorge. He probably could have opposed Nazi Germany more openly, but he was in no way a collaborator, much less “Hitler’s Pope”.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I have to agree with Timothy. Pius XII was not the villain many try make him out to be.

          • Pst4usa says:

            I was not trying to make him out to be a villain Mr. Kung and Mr. Lane, I was more commenting on the brave commenter that Brad was referring to, and her comment about more than 7 decades since having a real Catholic Pope. If my Catholic father’s opinion was correct, that Pope fell short as well.
            My knowledge on this issue is very limited, but it does come from a very Catholic family and a father that fought in WWII, his opinion was that the Pope did next to nothing and he was very sad to say these things about his Holiness, (his words, not mine).

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Didn’t think you were trying to make him out to be a villain, Pat. I was specifically of a book titled, I believe, “Hitler’s Pope”, which was a bit over the top from what I have heard.

              After WWII, I think a lot of people thought much more could have and should have been done before the war started, by almost everyone concerned. And they were right. By the time the Americans got involved, I don’t think there were a lot of options open except to crush the Nazis asap.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Looking back with 20-20 hindsight, what I think we can be sure of is that nationalism won out over the brotherhood of man in regards to Germany. It can’t have missed anyone’s notice that the most Christian of continents — Europe — has been engaged in never-ending wars for hundreds of years. It’s as if the message of Christ did not sink very deep and was always just on top, for show.

                So I wouldn’t tend to blame Catholics, per se, if they put their national feelings over their religious feelings. They weren’t alone. And when you see the current pope traipsing around the globe spreading Leftism (not Christianity), you can understand this has been going on a long time.

                This is what is startling about Francis of Assisi. He treated Christ as if he is real. Think about that. Few do. If it is real (and I have my doubts), then all this other stuff is just a pitiful sideshow, possibly even inspired by Beelzebub.

                Either Christianity is a salvation program or an anti-poverty program. Take your pick. The current pope has clearly chosen the latter, among other leftwing things.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                It can’t have missed anyone’s notice that the most Christian of continents — Europe — has been engaged in never-ending wars for hundreds of years.

                The reason for the numerous wars in Europe is an interesting question. Of course, the fact that many different nationalities occupy a small space with questionable weather may have something to do with this. But I suspect what what was really so damaging to Europe, as regards wars, was the combination of improving technology and development of the efficient bureaucratic state. This enabled governments to put into use ever more deadly weapons in an ever more deadly manner. Financing of war grew and the organization of large armies became easier.

                It has been my observation that nowhere on earth are people particularly peaceful. The important thing is the amount of violence which any group can bring to bear. Aboriginals throwing rocks at each other are still violent, just not very efficient. The West has been most successful at increasing the amount of scientific violence.

                As an aside, I think one of the reasons that Marxists are so keen to push internationalism that they have taken the wrong lesson from the many wars which have taken place in Europe. They believe if one can get rid of “nationality” then there will be harmony. I believe they have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.

              • Timothy Lnne says:

                Stephen Pinker and Jared Diamond have both recently looked into the question of human violence even in primitive societies. One can note that some of the worst violence in terms of killings as a percentage of the population take plaee in primitive areas (Diamond cited an especially remarkable example from New
                Guinea).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I think what’s going on with this Pope is the kind of cheap and guilt-laced “compassion” we see happening all over the West. People have it good, and they’ve been made to feel guilty about it. So they support every stupid “victim” cause. This show of support seemingly costs them nothing.

              Same with the Pope. Here’s a guy who is pampered, rich, powerful, and famous. So he goes around spreading his stupid Marxist fortune-cookie wisdom.

              As one article I read recently noted, in his speeches and crap yesterday, you know the name he didn’t mention? It was “Jesus Christ.” Do you know what the most amazing assertion that exists which is relevant to this case? No, not global warming. Not that socialism will help the poor. It’s that corrupt man, having screwed up his world through sin, was given a second chance when God became man and paid his for his sins giving him a sort of Cosmic do-over.

              This message is supposedly why there is a Catholic Church at all and why there is a Bishop of Rome. But that message doesn’t even make center stage.

              Fraud. Faker. Fudger. If there is a God in Heaven, I can’t imagine he’s particularly pleased by this guy or the swarm of fakers and frauds around him. Although I’m not the believer you are, Pat, I don’t think Jesus died on the cross for global warming, socialism, or to prop up Communist regimes. This is some serious moral corruption we see being celebrated today.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              It appears that Pius did support the quiet action of churches in sheltering Jews, but he never did anything open against Hitler (aside from that 1938 criticism). No doubt that’s what your father was reacting to.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I’m no a Papal historian, Pat, so I don’t know the specifics. What I can tell you is that I’ve about had all the treacle I can stand today. I mean, let’s have a parade and admiration for somebody who has actually done something worthy. Maybe found a cure for a disease. Maybe saved an innocent from a bad guy. Got a cat out of a tree. Whatever. But to give such admiration to a man who gives out lame fortune cookie shibboleths?

          Like I said. I’m at my limit. I think I’ll turn off the news and listen to a little Sinatra. The news cycle is a gigantic theatre of liars and pretend-nice.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the phenomenons we’re watching in all this is Leftism replacing bona fide Christianity. Although Christianity itself is partly a faith proposition, that proposition was fairly well established and understood long before the concepts of “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” Marxism, and “social justice” came on the scene.

    What were are seeing is people drifting from the timeless to the transient. We see fads and cultural bubbles replacing established beliefs. And those who are going with the flow of “Progressive” culture find all kinds of ways to deny this fact.

    And this isn’t occurring only in the religious sphere. It’s happening all over. Jeffrey Lord has a blessedly frank, if long, letter addressing the dishonest “moderate” conceit of many Republicans who think themselves conservatives but just with different tactics. They are not conservatives with different tactics. They are statists with different excuses.

    Again and again we see how easy it is to become a collaborator. It is human nature to “go with the flow” rather than to stand up for truth or what is right and what is wrong.

    And I don’t know if they have a playbook or are just devoid of their own minds, but time after time I’ve been called the same things by these so-called “moderates.” I’m a perfectionist. Or, as Lord says, they say that those (such as Ted Cruz) who actually stand for conservative ideas and will fight for them are all about “ideological purity” or are “ideologically rigid.” Well, yes, in regards to truth — about what works and what doesn’t work — I am “ideologically rigid.” What is the merit in being non-rigid where you end up with “2+2=5”?

    Catholics, like many Protestants and a large majority of Jews, have abandoned their faith and have substituted tenets of Leftism. Denial of this fact does little good. Being a low-information Catholic is no excuse either. One may agree with or disagree with what it means to be Catholic. But there is such a thing. And this Pope is not that thing. He is the fake thing. He is simply repackaged Leftism.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Until I get Daren’s permission to reprint it in whole, here is a terrific article on the subject: Catholics and Communists.

    To my way of thinking, it’s not an easy thing to believe in a benevolent Creator of the universe who has a good plan for all our lives. It’s not easy to believe that our souls are of unique importance, that as individuals we have value. It’s not an easy thing to suppose that there is a moral imperative asserted onto us from above, and that it is indeed our moral imperative, and one that we can’t buy our way out of, either via Indulgences or “social justice.”

    Therefore, I remain sympathetic to those who don’t believe the Catholic dogma. It might be true. It might not be true. But what it does do is make certain statements about our place in the universe, both in terms of promises and of obligations.

    And what Daren describes in his article is, I think, a total rejection of this Catholic idea. It seems that people have traded the possible benefits of a transcendent Kingdom for the seemingly sure benefits of a statist utopia. That is, “free stuff” offers more attraction to people than the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

    That is the state of things in the Catholic Church, probably more so amongst the hierarchy than the laity. But I don’t think they are that far apart. And what we see happening is the corruption of the entire idea of morality by asserting the Marxist idea that there is only a class morality, not personal morality. “The rich” are at fault which, conveniently, opens the door for statists demagogues at the top and moochers at the bottom.

    Charity is redefined as a state action and responsibility. Individual morals are no longer a consideration. If you are poor, it’s not your fault. And having just stated this, you see how this Marxism (Catholic liberation theology, or whatever you want to call it) moves the emphasis to purely economic measures in terms of judging individuals and society.

    That would have been strange news indeed to both Jesus and St. Francis who did not view the movement as a poverty prevention program. This aspect is even more troubling considering that poverty in capitalist countries (the very countries that earn the wrath of these Marxist Catholics such as the Pope) is lower than has ever been seen on earth. If anything, the problem of poverty has been cured (as much as it ever can be) by our system. And yet this system is singled out by these low-information pseudo-Catholics for condemnation.

    Strange indeed. Stranger still that I should be a defender of the faith. But that’s how corrupt Catholicism has become.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      My sole concern here, particularly after Morrissey’s article, is: Are we in fact getting a fair and accurate portrayal of the Pope’s statement from the synoptic media? Or are they (as Morrissey, who actually read the whole thing, says) merely finding those nuggets that support their preconceptions? I don’t know the answer, but I do know how little trust the synoptic media merit.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There’s a much wider and long-lasting issue here, Timothy, than just the media. There’s the reality of Catholics haven’t long been dealing in Marxism via various other names, including “social justice.” And Catholics are long-practiced in the ways of avoiding this truth. They will, for instance, haul out the word “subsidiarity” as if that counter-balanced and excused all the Leftist ideas that have infiltrated.

        I sincerely doubt that this is any kind of media distortion. The Pope’s words are the Pope’s words. And you have to see them in context of the decades of Leftism that has infiltrated Catholicism. Over a decade ago a good friend of mine confided to me that the nuns that he was in association with were all socialists.

        This is the new face of the Catholic Church which has little to do with the media spreading a biased view. Things are far worse than even the conservative media are portraying things, although I think Daren pulled few punches.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s what I think is a very sensible and thoughtful response to the Pope’s recent “Apostolic Exhortation”: The Pope Attacks Free Enterprise by Andrew B. Wilson at The American Spectator.

    Note the preponderance of “thumbs down” for the sensible opinions expressed at the bottom of the article. There is much denial going on.

    Catholicism itself suffers from a collectivist mentality, which is surely part of the reason for the difficulty coming to terms with the infiltration of Marxism into standard Catholic teaching. In the Catholic Church, it’s not so much what you believe but that you believe as the church teaches. It associational ethics. You’re saved simply by association to an establishment. What the establishment believes on any given day is of less importance. You simply must remain a member in good standing. And since the Church is considered good, by definition, it can’t possibly be doing anything dodgy.

    But in the American conception of God and liberty, logic, facts, and specific right and wrong still matter. It should be noted that a large number of Protestants and most Jews have substituted Leftism for much of their authentic religion. This is by no means a Catholic issue.

    Had the Pope wanted to offer a cautionary tale regarding materialism, he could have done so without the Marxist anti-capitalist spin. But he didn’t. He could have noted that the greatest threat to freedom (and to economic prosperity, which he claims to care deeply about) is the growing state, and one that is built brick-by-brick by “Progressive” leaders of all stripes using straw men such as “unfettered capitalism” as an excuse to advance the state. But he didn’t. Instead, he used that same old Marxist dishonest argument.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Rush Limbaugh characterized the Pope’s “Evangelii Gaudium” as “juvenile left wing blog economics.” I think that’s about as honest and succinct as you can get.

    This morning Rush read on the air a little bit of this article from David Harsanyi from Reason.com: What the Pope Got Wrong About Capitalism:

    You could always detect a pinch of socialistic seasoning in the church’s theological stew. But in this case, the pope doesn’t simply point out that the wealthy aren’t doing enough to help alleviate poverty. He uses the recognizable rhetoric of the political left to accuse free market systems of generating and nurturing that poverty.

    The pope condemns the “new tyranny” of “idolatry of money,” reasonably arguing that economic systems should not be accepted with blind faith but also saying that “as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.”

    For starters, it’s troubling that the pope fails to make any genuine distinction between Western poverty (terrible) and the poverty of the Third World (unimaginably terrible). But is it really true that “absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation” are the driving reasons for poverty and inequality? People in places such as Congo, Burundi and Mozambique live under corrupt authoritarian regimes where crippling poverty has a thousand fathers — none of them named capitalism. The people of Togo do not suffer in destitution because of some derivative scheme on Wall Street or the fallout from a tech IPO.

    “While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially,” the pope goes on to say, “so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few.”

    In truth, global inequality has been dropping for years. The World Bank estimates that global poverty was halved from 1990 to 2010. In fact, according to the World Bank, the United Nations’ “millennium development goal” of cutting world poverty in half by 2015 came in five years ahead of schedule, despite a major global recession. The decline in poverty coincides, not coincidentally, with developing nations embracing more market-based systems.

    And he knocks it out of the park when he states:

    Now, no reasonable person believes that any economic system is a cure-all. But how many reasonable people argue that market-based economies — and the underlying morality that drives them — haven’t done more to alleviate poverty worldwide than any other system? For the most part, in fact, the more unfettered a nation’s economic system is the more prosperous the population becomes and, consequently, the more it spends on charity and safety net programs. When we match up The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom with the World Bank’s measure of per capita income, we find that the countries with the most unencumbered systems and the most financial “speculation” usually have the least amount of poverty.

    The Pope, like many Catholics (and many people all around) need to educate themselves before spewing their uniformed blather, especially if such blather will lead to worse solutions for the people (the poor) that they supposedly care about.

  10. Timothy Lane says:

    Jonathan Goodman has an interesting article on the encyclical today available on Town Hall. He points out that the message is better than presented by liberals who cherry=picked what they liked and ignored his condemnation of collectivism, but also considers it a disappointment overall due to the Pope’s use of leftist language, and contrasts it with John Paul’s understanding of the value of capitalism.

  11. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This isn’t a “personal attack” on Catholics. (Many of my best friends are Catholics. No, really.) But someone has to save them from themselves.

    I read this article by Robert Klein Engler (if anyone knows him, have him come join us) on the side blog of American Thinker this morning: A Worthless Sacrifice. He seems to be on the same mission of saving Catholics from themselves. I love this turn of phrase:

    For those who have not been following the heretical theology coming out of South America, social justice is an ideology popular among many liberal Catholics, today. For others, it is a way of wearing the wool of Catholicism over the wolf of communism.

    We must respect the courage and sacrifice of Foley and Stevens, but we must also question their teachers and their values. Did Foley’s teachers mislead him into thinking that Islam is not what it is, a death cult? Did Foley and Stevens believe the evil that killed them was something other than what it is?

    This short blog post is worth a read.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Very interesting blog post that was. Islam and Christianity can flourish together when Islam is willing to accept the modern world — a world of independent woman and religious (and non-religious) plurality. So far, it hasn’t been able to do so, and there’s no indication that it will anytime soon.

      As for “social justice”, its advocates carefully ignore the concept of individual justice, just as they choose not to see the difference between charity (which is voluntary) and government entitlements (which are forced). Of course, given some of the flaws of Catholicism a few centuries back, that failure is somewhat understandable if very regrettable.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Maggie Gallagher has an article at NRO titled: The Church’s Crisis of Faith and Mine. It would appear that the Catholic Church has elected the equivalent of an Obama as its head. Here’s an interesting comment to the above article:

    Two words—no, strike that—just two letters, are all one needs to know about Francis I: S.J.
    Having been educated by Jesuits in both high school and (undergraduate) college at approximately the same time that the wheels began to come off traditional Catholicism, namely, 1960–1968, I am more aware than most of the truly pernicious role the Society of Jesus has played in corrupting both the Church and the faithful for 50 years now, much of it perpetrated for the basest reasons, reasons that you will never read about in America, the Jesuit weekly, or even alluded to.

    By the 1960s, the fabled high-IQ priests that the Society had a reputation for turning out since the Sixteenth Century were in active and in many cases malevolent revolt against the Church, preening themselves on their avant garde dialectics and generally sneering in contempt at the “lesser orders” of the Church, whose paramount virtue too many Jesuits considered to be a defect: their fidelity. Those Jesuits, it is sad to note, had taken a “special vow of obedience” to the Pope; and their Superior-General was, by tradition, and remains the pope’s own confessor.

    It was not a pretty sight. I well remember a conversation I had with one particular Jesuit father in around 1968, one of my teachers and a professor of logic, a man clearly quite smitten with his own superior intelligence, who mocked Paul VI mercilessly, who was utterly uninterested, as most Jesuits are, in pastoral work—they pride themselves, I think, as being first and foremost classroom lecturers—and who happily avowed his active homosexuality. Doctrine was, for him, a bad joke; and atheism and theism were on equal footing so far as he was consulted (a matter of “logical consistency,” you see).

    It was quite obvious even then that the latter propensity, his sexual “orientation,” informed everything else about the man, from his queer opinions to his defiant teaching to his priestly lassitude, rendering him, in my opinion, spiritually toxic to anyone he interacted who knew he was a priest, in other words, to a great number of students. There were and probably still are many such “priests” lodged like weevils within the Society of Jesus.

    Electing a Jesuit to the See of St. Peter, therefore, has always been an inherently risky venture for the Catholic Church to embark upon. But that Rubicon has been crossed, and now we must live with it as best we can. Of course, Francis I is old enough to have been ordained into a marginally less corrupt generation of Jesuit fathers. But he clearly shares with the worst of them a reflexive Laodiceanism as to the teachings of the Church, as well as an unseemly regard for his own personal—not papal—charism. He is not too discomfited, I think, by those who seek to meddle with the Magisterium, which is after all the prerogative of the dialectician.

    To this day whenever a representative of my old “Jebby” university calls me on the phone and asks for donations, I am happy to tell him or her that I will send a check “the day you preach Christ crucified again, not Karl Rahner, S.J., or any other ‘revolutionary’ Jesuit theologian. Until then, not a penny.” The saddest part about the interactions is that the volunteers who do the calling, who often are current undergraduates, have no idea what it is I am talking about or what is at stake. As I said, the spiritual influence of every Jesuit university on those it presumes to instruct is at best an unhappy influence. I am not at all surprised at the confusion being sown by some who are close to our Jesuit pope.

    Another posters says:

    I have had a feeling for a while that Benedict was ousted against his will and the new Pope……if not a homosexual himself……….is a modern Borgia and the Catholic Church is in lethal trouble. The infiltration by the Gays seems…….logically……..to have been more than just a grab for children………………..
Gays infiltrate and then destroy. It is their way.

    Again, no apologies will be forthcoming from me who spotted this Pope immediately for who he was.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I like her suggestion of the Henry VIII feast day. He was, after all, declared a Defender of the Faith because of his repudiation of Luther. But we should also remember that we don’t know who proposed the libertinist draft, or what will finally result. We also should remember that libertinist newsliars will seek to report anything they can find that encourages their position. So far, they’ve had to lie, or at least take things out of context, and we can hope that this will still be true.

      But it does say something that we have to rely on such hopes. That shouldn’t be necessary.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Maggie characterized “the synod” thingie as a trial balloon, acknowledging that at this point it has no “official” power to change policy. But it’s obviously a part of an orchestrated campaign to liberalize/Leftize the Catholic Church. One may be for or against this, but clearly the workings of “the synod” have this as a goal.

        We also should remember that libertinist newsliars will seek to report anything they can find that encourages their position. So far, they’ve had to lie, or at least take things out of context, and we can hope that this will still be true.

        That seems like the narrative being floated around by Catholic apologists. Or I should say “rationalizers,” for many Catholics (who are no friends of Leftists) have found it easier to deny the thrust of Pope Francis then to face head-on who they actually have as a Pope.

        We needn’t filter our news through the Leftist media. Often we can go right to the words and deeds of Pope Francis. He is not simply being misunderstood or misrepresented. This guy is the real deal: Leftist. Like a lot of people in religion today, their Leftist values have replaced the authentic Christian ones. But the outer accouterments and language often remain the same thereby disguising this fact. One must remember that Pastor Wright’s church was called “Christian” when it was, in fact, a Marxist church that preached Black Liberation Theology that stemmed from some Central American kook, and not from St. Paul or St. Peter (let alone Jesus).

        It’s shocking to see frauds of this scope perpetrated on people. But this is indeed happening. And it seems likely that Catholics will readily adjust to this new reality rather than demand that the Pope and the Church stay true to their faith.

        For all the faults of Protestantism (and there have been many), it’s easy to understand why there was a Reformation. And perhaps we can see that another one will soon be needed.

  13. Pst4usa says:

    I have not read all the comments here but I did read quite a few, but no one I saw covered the thing that jumped out at me; that this Pope is showing his own idolatry for money by assuming that if the government would take from the rich and give to the poor. That would do it, that is all they need; not God, no that is not enough, that somehow God is not in control, God is not sovereign. He seems to be saying that money comes before God, before Jesus. Well from this former Catholic’s perspective this Pope seems to have left the reservation.

  14. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The I told you so’s continue. Good article, Dennis.

    Unfortunately, however, being a wonderful person doesn’t mean you will be a wonderful pope. Any Catholic who tweets, “Inequality is the root of social evil,” as Pope Francis did last March, should be a socialist prime minister, not a Christian leader. The moral message of every Bible-based religion is that the root of evil is caused by poor character and poor moral choices, not by economics. The pope’s tweet is from Marx, not Moses.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      And now Pope Idiot wants to issue an encyclical against global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption. Too bad they didn’t pray to stop it back in 1990s, since then they could say their prayers were answered. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen any report on his response to the Muslim atrocity in Paris this morning. I guess the satirists weren’t Catholics, and they probably weren’t poor, so PI doesn’t care about them.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Having put aside my one-dimensional gotcha-based smarty-pants ideology a few years ago, I won’t hold it against Catholicism, per se, that they have a counterfeit pope (and they do). I supposed neither will I hold it against all America that we have a counterfeit president (and we do). Such are the times when real is just a marketing slogan away and the average mind is buffeted to inoperability by having an emotion that can’t be immediately validated.

        But there is real, and there is thoughtful Catholicism. Right now I’m reading The Story of a Soul (L’Histoire d’une Âme): The Autobiography of St. Thérèse of Lisieux. She’s perhaps better know as “The Little Flower.” She is an expression of something you can only wonder about. Either she was delusional or she was tuned into God FM.

        If one does not believe the dogma of materialism (and there is no good reason to do so), then it’s an open-ended question regarding what kind of light is available to a human being. We perhaps needn’t be confined to the small boxes we typically put ourselves in. Materialism, taken to its logical conclusion, is “nothing means nothing.” That seems self-evidently false. And, really, Marxism (and the view of the pope) are conversant with this, the pope having, as Prager noted, substituted Marx for Moses.

        It almost makes you pine for the popes who had engaged in wars to hold onto the Papal States and/or had a mistress or two and a few bastard children tucked away. That’s the kind of human weakness one can relate to. Nobody’s perfect, but at least many of these popes of old believed in the message of Christianity. But to reduce good and evil to economics and to personal predilections (as this pope stated in so many words) is to have an apostate as the Bishop of Rome. Shocking, but true.

        The Little Flower seemed to come to the realization early that “all is vanity.” It’s hard to disagree. So much about our day and age is cause for looking back to gain and gauge wisdom, not at the parade of fools we have before us now.

  15. Timothy Lane says:

    Catholic League leader Bill Donohue, like many liberals, responded to the atrocity in Paris by attacking Charlie Hedbo for its blasphemous contents. He seemed to be too stupid to grasp that there’s a difference between protesting insulting works and murdering those who insult, and especially to grasp that when some “people” believe they have a right to murder those who insult them, it’s incumbent for all supporters to insult them as viciously as they can.

  16. GHG says:

    There is evil all around us.

    My faith consoles me that God will triumph over evil.

  17. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    More evidence that the Pope is the typical moral idiot of the Left: The Pope and the Punches

    • Timothy Lane says:

      He was showing his Peronist roots. Think of Juan Peron as a genuine national socialist, and you can see that except perhaps for the militaristic nationalism, Pope Francis is a Peronist — a supporter of some form of socialism, and at the least a sympathizer with autocracy and lack of free expression.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Just to have the bad taste of equating somebody saying “Your mother wears army boots” with what ISIS and other aspects of “radical” Islam is doing shows a complete lack of moral depth.

  18. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    You can follow my discussion here regarding the article, Francis is not the Left’s Pope.

    Agree with me or not (I welcome disagreement…maybe you think I’m wrong). But the Pope could sprout horns on his head and many Catholics would call it a halo.

  19. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Rush was talking about Pope Francis’ environmental wacko statement about “climate change.” I tried to find the article but couldn’t. But I did run across this from the National Catholic Register: Business, Pentagon pursue climate change strategies. This naive author lists these key areas of concern:

    • Receding Arctic ice leading to a potential for oil spill or cruise ship disasters;
    • The potential flooding of seaside military bases, like the Naval Station in Norfolk, Va.;
    • An increase in need for global, as well as domestic, disaster relief;
    • The possibility that climate change could act as a “threat multiplier” — for instance, droughts leading to human migration and causing instability in places like the Middle East.

    Folks, if this is now mainstream Catholic thought, they are no longer Christians. They are useful idiots for Karl Marx. They have abandoned the teachings of Jesus and instead stuffed Cultural Marxism into the trinity, making it “Father, Son, and Climate Change.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Basically, they’re accepting the Gospel According to the Goracle instead of the actual facts, much less their own gospels. Or, in other words, they’re typical liberals.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Either we conform ourselves to the faith or we conform the faith to our various off-the-shelf political and social conceits. As I understand it, Jesus didn’t die on the cross for “society.” The point is not economics but personal transformation.

        Or do I have the message wrong? Is the point such faddish (and false) notions as “climate change” or the never-ending naive idea of eliminating the poor? Even Jesus, no rube, said, “For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.”

        That sounds decidedly as if there is some larger context than just making sure that everyone has Xbox, air conditioners, two cars in the garage, and limitless supplies of Cheetos.

        I feel sometimes like such an odd defender of the faith because I don’t actually deep-down believe in all the faith elements. But I understand them. I understand them better than the Pope. What I don’t have is his PR budget.

        And I’ve never been one to rise to the level of calling the Church the “Whore of Babylon,” but if they are so dad-blamed interested in us giving our money to the government to help the endless “poor,” how about starting with them giving away their own vast holdings?

  20. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a good short article by Gene J. Koprowski: The Climate Has Been Changing Since Genesis 1:1, So Why is Pope Francis Suddenly So Concerned?

    George Will, of all people, had some scathing words as well for the pope: Pope Francis Doesn’t Understand How to Alleviate Poverty.

    What you basically have here is a false pope. Catholicism has been drifting leftward for quite some time. So either Pope Francis is the coronation and recognition that Catholicism isn’t Christianity or else this false pope will give inspiration to Catholics to get back to the basics.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It all goes back to Juan and Evita. They would love Pope Francis, and he has done little or nothing to indicate that he wouldn’t appreciate that love.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        If I were a bona fide Christian, seeing something as fraudulent as Pope Francis would be deeply disconcerting…especially if one is a Catholic. Are our deepest held beliefs little more than the result of human affectations and faddish beliefs? Is now religion nothing more than someone’s rather stupid and naive politics?

        Will’s article, in particularly, just nails this juvenile pope. Clearly you can see what Dennis Prager means when he says “nice, but not good.” This pope is “nice, but not good.”

        On the flip side, there is also something energizing and liberating about all this. Anyone who has been in this, or any, culture has run across fundamentalists of one type or another who say “You must do and say and think like this or you’re going to hell and against god’s word.” Of course, mere hypocrisy does not invalidate any belief or fact.

        But when there is such institutionalized heresy, I find that liberating. For all those who dismiss personal beliefs as “Designing your own god,” well, what is the Pope doing? Maybe the Reformation (such as it was) was just the tip of the iceberg of what was needed. I don’t know that Jesus ever had in mind a priestly class to make of God little more than a franchise, to be controlled and parceled out by an elite.

        Of course, you know for me, a wink’s as good as a nod. A wolf may put on sheep’s clothing, but that doesn’t make him a sheep. Outer forms are amongst humanity’s commonest ways to fool not only others but oneself. You believe in God? You believe in Jesus? Well, as I say, good for you. I’ll take your belief with a grain of salt. And although Ben Carson caught some flack (and probably rightly so) for questioning Donald Trump’s beliefs, it should be apparent by now the a lot of “Jesus” is merely an affectation, not a deeply-held change of heart and spirit — if not outright atheistic-based Marxism.

        So hallelujah all you want. Wear all the funny hats (as the pope does) that you want. Does any of this even resemble Paul’s interpretation of what one was supposed to do? Shake the dust off indeed.

  21. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I think this is the article that Rush was reading on the air today: Miami Priest to Pope Francis: Why Condemn Capitalism So Strongly, But Not Communism?

    The Pope is a moral idiot. This is what tends to happen to people who suck down Leftism. The article quotes Father Cutié:

    Why do you and other religion leaders condemn capitalism so strongly, and offer us a list of all the disasters that result from it on earth, but we never see an equally strong condemnation of atheist communism, which continues to cause the world so much harm? This inequality when the time comes to condemn appears unjust. […]

    Why do we ignore those who suffer from the great poverty of a lack of freedom and who, only for expressing their desperation and demanding respect for the most basic human rights, are detained, harassed, and beaten? […]

    Is it really more important to have diplomatic relations with a country that has not had free elections in 50 years, that abuses its people, that has a well-documented history of oppressing and robbing the Church–than to seek justice, the common good and freedom for all Cubans?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The Peron Pope, Francis (or is that Pope Canute, given his desire to prevent climate from changing?), seems to find far more to criticize in American than in Cuba. Strangely, so far at least, abortion, homosexuality, and the sacrifice of religious liberty in their names don’t seem to matter as much to him as anti-capitalism and “climate change”. Whether or not he’s a moral idiot, he’s certainly some kind of idiot.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Let’s assume that anti-Pope Francis is a reasonably intelligent man…if not necessarily an honest one. And I say that because it’s not at all obscure that various forms of socialism actually make life for the poor worse.

        And we have to assume the anti-Pope (like many Leftists) understands this, despite their caterwauling over the plight of “the poor.” What likely bothers them more (and they are not honest enough to admit it) is the rich. What they hate is inequality. They would rather eat the rich even if it didn’t do one thing to help the poor, and even though they know it would hurt the poor.

        Margaret Thatcher was well aware of this phenomenon. So no one should be intimidated by the suppose supreme benevolence of this anti-Pope or anyone else who stumps for “the poor.” They don’t actually care about the poor. What they hate is that there are people who are rich. Never forget that. And you might be surprised to see the anti-Pope fly right past that Commandment against coveting. But at this moment, I’m not. And all of you out there have to be prepared to seize your own mind and do as Reagan said and “Don’t be afraid to see what you see.” There is corruption in high places by people pretending to be God’s gift to benevolence.

        Listen to that great bit by Margaret Thatcher, and you’ll understand how absurd it is to compare Carly to her as Aaron Goldberg did at The American Spectator recently.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          This is why conservatives often ask supporters of the “eat the rich” mentality how this will make their lives better. It will make the hyper-envious a bit happier (except that they always find something else to be envious about), but that’s about it. But since hyper-envy is the root of that mindset, the activists don’t care about the lack of results in terms of the justification they give. The envy is the reason, care for the poor is the excuse — and that’s why they don’t like such issues being studied honestly. It might take away their excuse.

  22. Rosalys says:

    I suggest that the picture accompanying this article is pretty strong evidence that Papa Franco, himself, is a socialist sympathizer, if not an out and out commie. There used to be a YouTube video of this event, which I did watch when it came out, nearly two months ago. It has since been taken down. (Gee, I wonder why?) I can assure you that it didn’t look to me like Frank had any misgivings about receiving this blasphemous gift.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421133/pope-francis-crucifix-hammer-sickle-communist

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well he is a Communist for all intents and purposes. When you get a guy like this elected, supposedly chosen by the Holy Spirit, it brings into question the whole enterprise of Catholicism. It is more likely it wasn’t the Holy Spirit who elected him but a bunch of Cardinals who saw Central and South America as the fastest-growing (or at least the strongest) bastion of Catholicism. I guess this anti-Pope is their “hope and change” candidate. And how is that working out any better than Obama?

      If one is a Catholic, one is more or less stuck with this insult to their faith…if they indeed view it as such. Many Catholics have become so socialist themselves, they see no problem. We’re the ones with the problem, always accused of taking the anti-Pope’s comments out of context, dupes of a mean liberal press (while they ignore the fact that the liberal press, by and large, loves this liberal anti-Pope for the very fact that he isn’t much of a Catholic).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        When you get a guy like this elected, supposedly chosen by the Holy Spirit, it brings into question the whole enterprise of Catholicism. It is more likely it wasn’t the Holy Spirit who elected him but a bunch of Cardinals who saw Central and South America as the fastest-growing (or at least the strongest) bastion of Catholicism.

        From what I have heard, his election was, in large part, bought. I have been told that an extremely wealthy Catholic group in Buenos Aires provided the funds which were used to purchase his place. Apparently, they provided millions of dollars to finance the pet projects of many cardinals around the world in exchange for the cardinals’ votes.

        The old saying, “follow the money” is a good rule to follow.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        At least the Pope visited the Little Sisters of the Poor. He’s a Peronist, but at least he is still a Catholic as well.

  23. Pst4usa says:

    The Catholic church has been communist for a long time, they were the social conservative that were also fiscally liberal. (seems like an oxymoron). If you reverse the two, I maintain that it is impossible, the two are mutually exclusive. I am not sure how it works reversed or the way that the Catholic church claimed it was. I guess that if the church was truly social conservative they would not want government involved in welfare and talking care of the poor. That does not fit the Catholic church I knew, of course they did tremendous work for the worlds poor, but they always supported bigger government to help do more.
    But as far as social issues, Gay (so called ) Marriage, abortion, or birth control, they were rock solid. Now I hear from Catholics, we have to change with the times; They ask who are we to say Gay marriage is wrong, that they personally would never be involved with abortion, but who are we to interfere with a women’s right to chose? We are through the looking glass here, and I do not know if the Pope is the Mad Hatter, or the Cheshire Cat, or the Queen of Hearts, but he certainly is not Alice.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Pat, Rush says the big move was when “welfare” become defined as charity.

      I’m not quite sure what passes for holy these days. A lot of what is called “holy” seems pretty superficial and smarmy to me.

  24. Rosalys says:

    Watching the (so called) main stream media news tonight, all the newscasters were going gaga and drooling over the “People’s Pope” (another clue that the guy’s a commie – everything the pinkos are involved with, do, or create is called “the people’s whatever.”) Last time I looked, these are the same folks who hate Christianity. What gives?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      God = perfect and infinite
      people = flawed and finite

      Therefore the point of faith, worship, prayer, hope, etc. is to:

      1) Move UP to God.
      2) Dumb god down and put a nice, soft bubble of kumbaya around every flawed and stupid things we humans do so that we can feel good just as we are.

      I’m no Doctor of the Church, but I believe I understand this core difference. Francis is the pope for the #2.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      They hate Christianity that opposes them. On economic issues, the Peron Pope is on their side. On social issues he isn’t — but he always manages to talk about them in such a way as to seem not really much of an opponent, so they can safely ignore him on those issues.

  25. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This enabled governments to put into use ever more deadly weapons in an ever more deadly manner. Financing of war grew and the organization of large armies became easier.

    Mr. Kung, if we had a Pope as wise as this current one thinks he is, he would travel the world spreading the word of Jesus Christ, that we should not strive so hard for earthly gains but store up treasures in heaven.

    Short of that, one might at least make the obvious observation that it is far better for human beings to channel their competitive energies into businesses and markets rather than governments and armies. Unfortunately, we have few leaders (including the current Pope) who will give this message. Instead, perhaps driven by guilt of their own extravagant trappings, they caterwaul about “the poor,” giving policy prescriptions (when they are even coherent enough to call them such) that would do little but make things worse for “the poor.”

    As an aside, I think one of the reasons that Marxists are so keen to push internationalism that they have taken the wrong lesson from the many wars which have taken place in Europe. They believe if one can get rid of “nationality” then there will be harmony.

    I think that’s a good observation, Mr. Kung. Near as I can tell it’s a psychological thing. Because socialism is inherently an atheistic pursuit, there is no object for one’s highest aspirations regarding The Big Picture stuff except a kind of small-u “unity” of governments. Those who measure reality with a stick that includes more than just the material have a broader conception of Unity. For them, the idea that some kind of paradise will flow from One World Government is not only an absurd thought but a monstrous one, which it is.

    So broken human nature, absent anything of higher value to place its trust in, forever tries to build its Tower of Babel.

  26. Glenn Fairman says:

    The Christian body of believers on Earth is a community where both spiritual and material riches are apportioned owing to need. This community exists solely by voluntary assent. Self sacrifice is a common vision, rooted in the Gospel ethos, that ought to animate the Christian towards charity and mercy, but alas, that greatness of soul seems on the decline, at least in the luxurious self-confident West.
    But Christianity aside, practical wisdom reminds us of the paradoxes that arise from misapplied compassion. Our age is cursed with a moral pathology that drives it to attempt the absurd task of rendering unequal things equal. A jihad without a god, and without accountability- to be carried out to the letter, even if virtue and freedom are sacrificial lambs in the bargain.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mr. Greater. 🙂

      My thought on this is that it’s very simple. You have two issues. The first is the reality (or unreality) of Christ. The second is the churchy culture itself which is highly arbitrary and may or may not be strongly connected to the first.

      Francis didn’t go around making the argument for Christ. He went around trying to make the argument for Communism. No one need soft-peddle this.

      If he could point to scripture and make his case for Communism as an authentic expression of Christ, then fine. But I don’t think he can. And I find this highly materialistic version of Christianity to be heretical. If the message is centered upon “stuff” instead of a moral orientation, you’re not talking Christianity. You’re talking Leftism. And as Dennis Prager has noted about many Jews in particular, they have made Leftism their religion. It has replaced the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

      Maybe this is a good thing or a bad thing. But what is sad to see is people falling for this anti-Pope’s cultural crusade while having the core meaning of Christianity blurred or forgotten. Who might be for such a thing? Whose interest does this serve?

  27. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    A terrific article from George Neumayr: The Pope’s Caricaturing of Conservatives

    All the tortured throat-clearing from pundits about the “nuances” of Pope Francis is very unconvincing. He is not nuanced at all. He is an open left-wing Catholic, perfectly comfortable with the de facto heretics within his own order and inside his special cabinet of cardinals . . .

    Well, say the pope’s desperate propagandists, Francis may not possess a deep mind but at least he has a big heart. If so, it seems to bleed for everyone but orthodox Catholics, whose fidelity to the faith under secularism’s ceaseless encroachments is treated with contempt.

    Like many modern Jesuits, Francis often sounds like he loves every religion except his own. Could anyone imagine him every talking about imams, rabbis, or even a feminist witch, in the same caustic style that he disparages Catholic traditionalists? If he did, he would have an “ecumenical” crisis on his hands.

    Early in his pontificate, video footage captured him teasing a blameless altar boy for holding his hands together piously. Were they “stuck” together? the Pope asked the bewildered boy. That is what passes for humor in the liberal Jesuit order.Visit almost any Jesuit college or school and you will soon encounter similar instances of anti-Catholic gibes presented as “reform.”

    The Jesuits have been the liberal or Marxist infiltrators into Catholicism with the intent of overthrowing it. Just as we have elected a radical anti-American as president, the Cardinals in Rome have elected an anti-Catholic pope. We live in strange times.

    For Christians, let alone Catholics, this is an opportunity to define their faith and rescue it from the secular/Leftist quagmire it has been penetrated by. Will they?

  28. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    More great stuff from George Neumayr on this fraudulent pope: The Soiled Shoes of the Fisherman.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      One can only pray that God calls this false prophet home before he can do much more damage to the Church and Western Civilization.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’ll take reform. Imagine the power of a former Leftist refuting this baloney, making confession after confession about the error of his ways.

        But, wow, gotta hand it to George. He’s catching up with me. He’s not pulling any punches. He’s had at least a couple very frank articles on the subject.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I’m afraid Kung Fu Zu’s option is a lot likelier than yours, though yours would be better if it actually happened. But Francis has put too many liberals in authority already to make a reform at all likely. Notice how quick and eager they were to downplay his meeting with Kim Davis.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Every bit of poison and corruption is an opportunity in disguise. We here have the ability to adhere to a value system, tried and true, and a metaphysical system, traditional and good, that is under-used and ripe for taking up. In some ways, I feel better that Christianity’s top leader is corrupt and morally confused. I find this clarifies the entire equation of what it’s all about. (Hint: not pointy hats.)

  29. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    It would appear that Catholicism also = sex abuse.

    This man is the highest ranking Catholic official ever charged with sexual abuse crimes. If the claims are true, he also covered for numerous other priests accused of sexual abuse.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AUSTRALIA_CARDINAL_CHARGED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-28-20-16-34

    It would appear this is something which is endemic in the Church. I believe this has done more damage to the Catholic Church than any other failing.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      By coincidence, Mr. Kung, I just read that following a link on Drudge. I’ll keep an open mind. This is just an accusation at this point.

      Still, you have to wonder why the Church has been so friendly toward this sort of thing. But then you could consider them on the cutting edge of the gender-bending folk that the rest of the degenerate world is just catching up to.

      One of the problems is just the bureaucracy and infusing way more importance into bishops (and the bishop of Rome) than is prudent or deserving. I’m not anti-Catholic by any means. But the truth of the Creator does not change on iota because of earthly rules and bureaucracies.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I’ve read that this is/was to some extent a local effect, with some seminaries dominated by homosexuals. That inerest spreads into the local hierarchy over time.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I believe I recall that, starting in the 1950’s, certain seminaries admitted homosexuals intentionally. The white collar gave these people a type of cover which they would not have had in the secular world.

          I also suspect that homosexual leftists intended to do their best to take over the institution and re-write Church doctrine.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I do think it’s clear by now that homosexual leftists are on a sort of Jihad against the church. Anyone know any reliable sources of info on this? But I don’t doubt there are many cadres of homosexuals who understand amongst each other that their mission is to bring down the church, or at least to continue replacing authentic Biblical ideas and liturgy with ones form the Religion of Leftism.

            At the end of the day, one can consider this a deep evil infiltrating the Church with an agenda to bring it down. Why the Cardinals ever elected a Marxist Pope to begin which shows, at least to me, just how deep the rot goes.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              They’re on a jihad agzainst any organization that reflects traditional moral codes. Note what they did to the Boy Scouts.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          American Thinker has an article on this which includes some stuff from Breitbart. It’s reasonably unclear at this point whether the charges are real or it’s just a veiled attack. When I read the words “historical sexual abuse allegations” that set off all kinds of red flags.

          There also might be internal left-vs.-right stuff going on the in the Vatican hierarchy. Sounds like enough material for a new Dan Brown novel. One commenter called him “Pope Karlos Marx” which made me chuckle. But some of this is no laughing matter.

          Indicative of the mind-rot of trump voters, one guy called “MAGA Country” reminds us of a quote from Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything.

          No, idiots such as this guy poison everything. It’s a legitimate question why pedophilia has seemingly been somewhat a protected practice inside the church. But these kind of flakes don’t see the deep religious impulse in Leftism itself. This Cardinal may be innocent or guilty. But let’s understand the possibility of the Religion of Leftism mounting an attack.

          Still, given that over a billion people rely on an organization itself to be the gatekeeper to heaven or hell, whoever holds the actual keys is somewhat irrelevant. And that is likely much of the problem. The Church too easily becomes an idol.

  30. pst4usa says:

    It is not the homosexual left that wants to bring down the church, all Christian denominations. It is the left that is working very hard to do this, most homosexuals just happen to be tools of the left. As Dennis Prager says “the left destroys everything it touches”; coincidence? I think not.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I agree, Pat. My analogy is that of the movie, “Speed,” with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. A perfectly good and functioning bus (something used to move a lot of people to where they want or need to go) is turned into a death trap. Someone puts a bomb on it and the bus has to keep moving no matter what or it will explode if it stops.

      This is the state of many churches. The Kumbaya Bomb has been wired into the religious services and ethics and the whole edifice of feelgoodism would blow up if anyone ever stopped and took a look at it.

      The solution is to get the hell off the bus. And I think that’s the immediate thing to do. Many of these institutions are beyond saving.

  31. pst4usa says:

    I like the analogy Brad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *