Posted on 07/17/2015 4:30:09 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
One cannot understand how Pope Francis surrounds himself with revolutionary leaders, assumes their ideas are good, and gives them a virtually unconditional support without first hearing renowned specialists who contend—with concrete data to back them up—that private property, free enterprise and the principle of subsidiarity have been a source of social progress and poverty reduction around the world, in spite of deficiencies that should be corrected. Socialism, on the contrary, has been and continues to be (e.g. communist Cuba and Venezuela) an economic system that intrinsically produces poverty, class struggle, and social conflict
“Chavez died. Fidel is sick. Francis has taken up that leadership role and is doing everything right,” boasted João Pedro Stédile of Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement (MST), one of the organizers of the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, speaking during the event at Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.
************
1. On July 9 in Santa Cruz, during the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements Pope Francis delivered a long and impassioned speech against capitalism and private property to cheering Marxist revolutionary leaders and followers of liberation theology.
2. Among those leaders, in addition to Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, whose jacket bore a large picture of blood-thirsty “Che” Guevara, were Brazilian João Pedro Stédile, leader of the Landless Workers Movement (MST), which has promoted revolutionary violence for decades in the Brazilian countryside, and Argentine Trotskyite Juan Grabois, specialized in promoting urban agitation on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, head of the Confederation of Workers of the Popular Economy, and member of the organizing committee of the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements.
3. Along with other delegates present, these people rank among the worst Latin American revolutionary leaders that remained from the times of communism. Yet, Francis treated them as if they were the very best of the best, asserting that their actions were "motivated by brotherly love," promoting "positive change" in society, and doing a genuine work of “social poets.” Francis encouraged them by saying, “Our faith is revolutionary," adding, “I have carried you in my heart." Francis’ support of these revolutionary shock troops could not have been greater. “Chavez died. Fidel is sick. Francis has taken up that leadership role and is doing everything right,” boasted João Pedro Stédile of Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement (MST), one of the organizers of the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, speaking during the event at Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.[1]
4. In a fiery speech, Francis placed the goals of their socioeconomic revolution together with those of his own ecological revolution, giving primacy to the latter, “perhaps the most important thing we should take up today.” However, this papal speech and the recent encyclical letter Laudato Si suffer from a significant and worrisome scientific “gap” which, with all due respect, affect a fundamental premise of both documents. It is the thesis defended by the most extreme environmentalists and entirely subscribed to by Francis, that human activity and not natural cycles are the main culprits for current climate changes. This thesis is not unanimously supported in the most respected scientific circles and has been challenged by high-level academic work.
It is not known on what specific scientific studies and ecological experts the pontiff based himself, because the bibliography in both texts cites no document in this regard. It is also important to recall that, on April 27 of this year, 100 environmental scientists sent Francis a letter imploring him not to allow himself to be misled by the arguments of radical environmentalists and by analyses which have not been demonstrated by environmental science. The letter added that, under the pretext of helping the poor, revolutionary environmentalists are actually contributing with their proposals to increase misery around the world.[2]
5. The same revolutionary leaders had already received words of praise from Pope Francis when the First World Meeting of Popular Movements was held at the Vatican in October 2014. For those revolutionary leaders of Marxist inspiration, that was, so to speak, a kind of media-op “beatification” still in this life, becoming one-of-a-kind “blessed” of an “upside down church” actually opposed to the Catholic social doctrine taught by Francis’ predecessors.[3]
6. In his speech in Santa Cruz, Francis acknowledged that "neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social reality." So it is not possible to understand how Pope Francis surrounds himself with revolutionary leaders, assumes their ideas are good, and gives them a virtually unconditional support without first hearing renowned specialists who contend—with concrete data to back them up—that private property, free enterprise and the principle of subsidiarity have been a source of social progress and poverty reduction around the world, in spite of deficiencies that should be corrected. Socialism, on the contrary, has been and continues to be (e.g. communist Cuba and Venezuela) an economic system that intrinsically produces misery, class struggle, and social conflict.
7. Accordingly, a few hours earlier in La Paz, President Evo Morales had given Francis, along with the Andean Condor decoration, the Luis Espinal Award in memory of a revolutionary priest murdered in 1980; this medal contains a blasphemous depiction of Jesus Christ on a hammer and sickle, the symbol of communism. Francis was also given a replica in natural size of the original wood carving made by the priest.
8. This blasphemous medal appears to be a tragic foreshadowing symbol of the directions being assumed by Francis’ pontificate in the political and social areas. ACI Catholic news agency reported that Francis decided to have both awards placed at the feet of the statue of Our Lady of Copacabana, Patroness of Bolivia. To him, these awards are "symbols of affection and closeness" and he received them from President Evo Morales with "cordial and generous affection."[4]
1.Cruz (cf. Fabiano Maisonnave, special envoy to Bolivia, in Folha de S. Paulo, Jul. 8, 2015) ↑ 2.(cf. Destaque Internacional, "Francisco, Eco-adventure, and ‘Scientific Lagoon’, Jun. 22, 2015, http://www.cubdest.org/1506/c1507franciscoeco.htm) ↑ 3.(cf. Destaque Internacional: "Francisco, Publicity 'Beatification' of Revolutionaries, and ‘Social Storm’, Nov. 2, 2014, http://www.cubdest.org/1406/c1411franciscomst.htm, and Nelson Ramos Barreto, "World Meeting of Popular Movements at the Vatican," Nov. 12, 2014, http://ipco.org.br/ipco/noticias/encontro-mundial-de-movimentos-populares-vaticano#.VaCagvlViiA) ↑ 4.(cf. ACI, July 10, 2015, link with photo of the blasphemous award: https://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/el-papa-francisco-deja-en-bolivia-condecoraciones-que-le-dio-evo-morales-77266/
Michael Novak, the Jesuit Economist would be willing to stand up against him.
One Jesuit does not a societal movement make.
This confirms what I suspected which is that the Pope is communist. Not sure how one reconciles being communist AND Christian.
Has been obvious since the moment this Pope was selected. South American Jesuit from a country that defaults over and over and can't get it's act straight due to endless populist left policies - supported and promoted by people like Pope Francis.
The RCC has a commie running the show. This is their Vicar of Christ - a marxist. If that isn't enough for conservative Catholics to leave the RCC I don't know what will.
I can hear Peter spinning in his grave here in Texas.
I can hear Peter spinning in his grave here in Texas.
Should American conservatives up and leave the country because Obama, Congress and certain Supreme Court Justices have been trampling on our Constitution?
If an occupant of the Chair of St. Peter happens to be a commie, that's his mistake. The Deposit of Faith to which faithful Catholics must adhere remains unchanged. Why should Catholics allow papal behavior (objectively foolish and evil though it may be) to drive them from the Church?
Considering that the Catholic Church has long been victimized and targeted by communists throughout history, most folks should find it stunning and unbelievable that the Church has chosen a communist Pope and is allowing the ongoing actions of his fawning over and bending over to the very leftists that have been seeking the destruction of the Catholic Church for decades (maybe centuries). If not for Biblical prophecy, I would find it all quite surreal. But I see everything is unfolding exactly as foretold.
Problem is...they are not even speaking out against it. At least, not that I’ve heard. You would think that somebody in the Catholic Church hierarchy would be saying something about it.
What is completely baffling is that he preaches against the Catholic Magisterium and yet not one member of the Episcopate that I've heard yet says anything about it.
Francis: redistribution of wealth.
Magisterium:
14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.
But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents."[4] The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.
15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.
Francis: inequality is the root of all social evil.
Magisterium:
17. It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community.
For, while the socialists would destroy the "right" of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven.
It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged "equality" of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a "leveling down." In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only "ordering" and "decision-making" body - if not also the "owner"- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of "psychological" emigration.
And so on and so forth...
bkmk
“Words I teach all mixed up into a devilish muddle.
Thus, anyone may think just what he chooses to think.”
Karl Marx, “On Hegel”
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/marx.htm
“If that isn’t enough for conservative Catholics to leave the RCC I don’t know what will.”
So, Satan attacks the supernatural bride of Christ, and we should flee?
I don’t think so.
—Cardinal Ercole Consalvi to Napoleon Bonaparte, after the general had threatened to crush the Roman Catholic Church
So it turns out your Vicar (God's representative one eart) is not God's Vicar after all...
And this anti-Vicar was chosen by a plurality of those red hats who oversee the worlwide Catholic religion...Of whom who knows how many make up the queer mafia of the Vatican and are pedo enablers of the entire Catholic priesthood...
And the gates of hell don't prevail against your religion???
His Church ≠ Peter (or any other pope).
His Church ≠ the Catholic hierarchy.
Nowhere in Scripture does He promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against particular members of His Church.
And God also warned us about bad pastors.
"Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord." Jer 23:1
Ah, Iscool, you attack again.
I am thankful that Blathernaut has already shown the fallacies in your latest screed, leaving me free to shake the dust off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.