Posted on 10/01/2015 5:19:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Unpopular though it may be to say so, I, for one, grew exhausted by the nonstop pronouncements/commentaries of Pope Francis. The spiritual leader of 1 billion Catholics -- roughly half of the world's Christians -- Francis just completed a high-profile, endlessly publicized visit to the United States.
But unlike past visiting pontiffs, the Argentine-born Francis weighed in on a number of hot-button U.S. social, domestic and foreign-policy issues during a heated presidential election cycle.
Francis, in characteristic cryptic language, pontificated about climate change. He lectured on illegal immigration. He harped on the harshness of capitalism, as well as abortion and capital punishment.
A fair-minded person might infer from his advice that capitalism is more prone to impoverish than to create enough wealth to bring the underclass out of poverty. Yet the poor in the free-market United States are mostly better off than the middle classes in Pope Francis' homeland. Argentina's statism has transformed one of the most resource-rich countries in the world into an impoverished nation. Are the wages of socialism therefore less than Christian?
Authoritarian regimes such as the Castro dynasty in Cuba or Iran's theocracy do not receive much criticism from the pope for their administration of state justice. Yet Francis blasted capital punishment, which in America is mostly reserved for first-degree murderers, not the perpetrators of thought crimes as in Cuba and Iran.
Francis believes -- and ipso facto puts the church behind the creed -- that global warming is man-caused. It is supposedly ongoing and can be addressed only though radical state intervention.
Francis, who arrived in the U.S. in a carbon-spewing jet, seems to leave no room for other views. If the climate really is becoming warmer, it cannot be because of naturally occurring cycles of long duration.
Hundreds of thousands of migrants are now swarming illegally into the West, whether into Europe mostly from the Middle East, or into America from Latin America. They arrive in numbers that make them difficult to assimilate and integrate, with radical repercussions on the host country's ability to serve the social needs of its own poorer citizens.
Yet Francis reserves most of his advice for host countries to ensure that they treat the often-impoverished and mostly young male newcomers with Christian humanity. That advice is admirable. But the pope might have likewise lectured the leaders of countries such as Syria and Mexico to stop whatever they are doing to heartlessly drive out millions of their own citizens from their homes.
Or he might have suggested that migrants seek lawful immigration and thereby more charitably not harm the interests of immigrants who wait patiently until they can resettle lawfully.
Or he might have praised the West for uniquely creating conditions that draw in, rather than repel, the world's migrants.
In sum, Francis did not fully understand a country founded on the principle of separation of church and state. And he has tragically harmed that delicate American equilibrium.
If a Christian truly believes that capitalism is the world's only hope, that illegal immigration is detrimental to all involved, or that the Iranian nuke deal is a prelude to either war or nuclear proliferation, is he thereby somewhat less Christian or Catholic?
Is Francis aware of age-old hospitality adages about guests and hosts, or warnings about those who live in glass houses?
Would an American president dare to visit the Vatican to lecture the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church about their blatant sex and age discrimination, and to advise Francis that his successor should be female or under 50?
Should Americans urge the pope to adopt the supposedly enlightened Western doctrine of disparate impact, which might fault senior Vatican clergymen for failing to promote diversity in matters of sex, race or age?
In this new freewheeling climate of frank exchange, should Protestant friends now advise Catholic dioceses to open their aggregate 200 million acres of global church lands to help house current migrants? Or should Francis first deplore the capitalist business practices in the administration of the so-called Vatican Bank?
Should the church turn over to prosecuting attorneys all the names of past and present clergy accused of criminal sexual abuse, and cede all investigation and punishment entirely to the state?
Lots of hypocrisy inevitably follows when churches and their leaders politick.
Conservatives who object to Francis' sermonizing often enjoy it when the moral majority and born-again evangelicals stamp their own social agendas with Protestant piety.
Liberals might applaud the pope when he weighs in on global warming and cutthroat capitalism but perhaps want him to stick to religion when he frowns on abortions or female priests.
Because Pope Francis has shed the Catholic Church's historic immunity from American politics, for good or bad, he and the church are fair game for political pushback.
But do we really want a priest in the role of Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz, dressed in ancient Roman miter and vestments, addressing hot-button issues with divine sanction?
This word, ‘attack,’ it does not mean what you think it means.
I don’t think you fully understand the concept of fantasy and how incredibly appropriate that word is to describe what you post about politics either....
So far you have only made one post that didn’t engender outright, audible laughter.
And #42 wasn’t it.
figures you were once naive enough to be a liberal. That I was never fooled by liberalism, and you were until recently, says it all.
Welcome to the club, but you’re embarrassingly late.
Still batting a thousand! Are you here all week? Should I try the veil?
It's not just you; it was glaringly forced at least. I mean really where'd that come from?
The author is railing on Francis for "weighing in on hot button issues" and how he "pontificated about climate change. He lectured on illegal immigration. He harped on the harshness of capitalism, as well as abortion and capital punishment." but then goes on to hope that we don't get "a priest in the role of Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz, dressed in ancient Roman miter and vestments, addressing hot-button issues with divine sanction?"
Talk about disjointed. Do you or do you want him to talk about conservative issues too Victor Davis Hanson?
Actually he (VDH) should be forgiven for this rant. He's like most these days who are sadly on both the left AND the right. He seems to want the Pope (and indeed all Christian leaders or faithful) to leave their Faith in the church (building). He doesn't seem to get that (at least Catholics) Christians are to live their faith in the public square, guiding their politics BY their faith.
One can like or dislike what the Pope has said and done on his most recent trip, but to criticize him for merely speaking his mind guided by his Faith; quite frankly that's anti-Christian. It's pure secularism for him to suggest the Pope (or anyone else) has no "right" to speak about anything but religious matters.
Again, true Christianity doesn't just stop at the world of politics, in fact it does the opposite: barges in with ideas and proposals (hopefully) grounded in Christian Tradition. Barges in to change the world for the better. Again one can criticize what Francis said specifically, challenging what he said wasn't really "grounded" in anything but leftism, but to say he shouldn't be a part of politics at all? That's what the leftists want: Christian leaders OUT of politics cornered "in the church" on Sunday's where they won't "hurt" anyone.
I'd only ask him one thing: Should Kim Davis just shut up too?
Francis lost his moral bearings when he asked for the end of the death penalty for the culprits of heinous crimes in U.S. while in Cuba he gave moral support to the murderers of political dissidents for the crime of demanding from the Stalinist regime freedom y respect of human rights.
Although the Pope visited common criminals in American jails; he did not visited in Cuba the political prisoners of conscience imprisoned in Castro’s dungeons.
Castro’s infamous firing squads were legitimatized by the Pope went he to present his respects to Fidel Castro, the Cuban Stalinist tyrant that enslaved the Cuban people for over 56 years, and after his cordial and friendly visit the Pope publicly reiterated his high esteem for genocide of the Cuban people.
Illegal immigration, same sex marriage, “climate change” are all issues that should be dealt with by governments, not religious leaders.
So Franklin Graham or Robert Jeffress have no business commenting on social issues either...?
your smart ass snark was uncalled for - and frankly above your pay grade.
So, you pose a question with two possible solutions, and someone responds with one of the solutions you yourself posited...and you think it shows uncalled for snark...?
If you were going to be pissed off if someone said ‘It’s just you’, why did you invite it as a possible response...?
It’s called a rhetorical question.....Google it. You’ll understand.
But there was more than just an answer to it.
It’s called a rhetorical question.....Google it. You’ll understand.
But there was more than just an answer to it. BTW WTF are you doing in the middle of this anyway. This does NOT concern you.
People will never come to a saving knowledge of eternal life as long as they’re told God loves them. That is not the gospel message.
BTW WTF are you doing in the middle of this anyway. This does NOT concern you.
Hey just responding to an illogical post on an open online forum...happens all the time, really...
most folks either stick to the topic of the article or respond to posts sent to them...buttinskyism is not standard. Happens, but it’s poor form .
There is a big difference between commenting on and trying to influence governments. The pope is meddling in politics, not just commenting.
“He was talking about the environment and that it should be saved......”
And what,pray tell, are the “issues” with the environment today if not globull warming? And since he also trashed the capitalism economic model the link is easily and incontrovertibly made to his globull warming rant.
The Pope is responsible for speaking of Church doctrine, not getting involved in bullsh*t political discussions.
We saw in U.S. Pope Francis incarnated in the classic corrupt Latin American demagogue faking extreme humility to cover a totalitarian mindset. For Francis, the U.S. and the capitalism system are the main responsible for the exploitation and misery in Latin America. In U.S. he condemned the death penalty of vicious criminals who enjoyed so much protection that the law conferred almost unlimited appeals taking decades to finally be applied the sentence.
In Cuba we saw another Francis, despicable, heartless, unmoral, cynic, making fun of the Cuban tragedy while embracing the Castro brothers responsible for the death of tens of thousands of innocent Cubans, and the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands political prisoners, while more of 20% of the population was forced to go in exile-more of 30,000 died trying to cross the Florida straits in makeshift rafts in their quest for freedom. In Cuba Francis did not dare to condemn the death penalty condoning with his cowardly silence the thousands of political prisoners murdered by the Stalinist regime for the crime of demanding freedom and respect for the human rights of the enslaved Cuban people. After being judged by Kangaroo tribunals al style of Stalin’s, the Cubans patriots were put to death by Castro’s infamous firing squads in less than 24 hours, many were martyrs of the faith that died shouting Long life Christ the King! and Viva Cuba libre.!
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.