If the Pope doesn’t want to be understood as a Commie, or at least a pinko, then he shouldn’t be talking about “the economy,” but about the poor.
If he thinks there are thieves abroad who are MAKING the poor poor, then he should name them. If there are policies that are hurting the poor, he should name them.
But just condemning the “worship of money” and other rhetoric of that sort enlightens no one. It indicates NOTHING about what needs to be done.
The poor will always be with us.
Crony capitalism and communism make more poor people.
Liberty helps more people help mor people.
Our system is getting more evil and the pope is not helping
Charity and “helping the poor” should be voluntary, not forced at the end of a gun with taxes. That’s the difference!
There is also a type of idolatry of the poor and downtrodden.
Those first century Christians held things in common because it was (1) voluntary, (2) a matter of self preservation for that time and place and (3) for Christians only. Helping the poor was separate and almsgiving. St. Paul said if you don't work you don't eat. Now plenty work and barely eat and plenty others don't work because there are no jobs that pay a living wage but most who don't work don't want to and get all their bodily needs met in sinful ways.
Did any pope ever say anything about dealing or using drugs?
I know we are evil if we don't go along with his global warming agenda which I don't. Arthur McGowan vented his fury of what that would lead to on another thread and that was sobering indeed. I will ping him because I used his name but he needn't respond.
The Church is for everyone, not just the poor. The Pope (or his messengers/publicists) failed.
How does the Gospel say we should pay for it, Padre? Elect politicians who will steal the money from those of us who get up in the morning and go to work everyday?
Calling for the theft of the rich for the poor is a sin, Calling for the rich to give to the poor isn’t, what side is the Pope on? It is becoming clear.
We are concerned for our poor. We’re concerned they’re too fat.
The Sermon on the Mount does indeed set a very high bar for believers, which is who the pope is talking to. We do not live in a theocracy, however.
the New Testement speaks of the poor in spirit which could be anynoe, rich or poor.
by focusing almost only on the poor the Pope is idolizing them. Its too bad he doesn’t call for all to be saved as where we go eternally is more important than our station in life.
Maybe the Pope should allow spiritual guidance from the Rev Billy Graham whose ministry has no focus on class and has helped millions become saved.
I’m tired of this pope, and the church in general, trying to guilt Americans into giving more. The church has this attitude that all Americans are wealthy and don’t give their fair share. Over the years, America has given more to the poor than most, if not every, other country in the world. We continue to support cesspools such as Haiti and most of the nations in Africa, even though most of our generosity is appropriated and squandered by rulers of those nations and never makes it to the poor.
And thanks to current unsound economic policies, the US has more and more people out of work. Charities in this country are hurting for donations because those who used to give can’t afford to, and many of those once generous donors are themselves in need of help.
Maybe the pope should leave his gilded cage, come to America and, instead of chatting with politicians, go out and talk to ordinary people who are unemployed, maybe lost their homes and/or have exhausted their savings. The middle class is rapidly disappearing and when it does, there won’t be anyone to help the poor.
Luke 18:22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
Waiting for the pope’s for sale signs.....!
In other words, a little wealth redistribution is ok. Sorry your popeness, that is communism. A communist can explain and justify all day long. At the end of the day, a commie is still a commie. Give a man a fish, he eats today, teach him to fish, he becomes entangled in the red tape of our tyrannical gubmint.
What an idiot.
Is that what he got out of the New Testament?
And all this time I thought the Gospel was about our relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ.
IIRC, Gospel is an English contraction of the German expression, “Gut spiel”, which means “Good News”. The original Greek was, transliterated from Greek to Latin alphabet, “euangelos”, meaning “message”. I believe it was Luther that interpreted this as “gut spiel” or “Good News”.
And what is the “Good News”? That we should establish ever larger and totalitarian government to take care of “the poor”?
No.
First the bad news.
We are all sinners condemned to eternity in Hell.
Now the good news.
Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself as the one and only possible atonement for our sins, that, through faith in Him, we could have eternal life in Heaven with Him.
Using your own money to help the poor is Gospel. Using other people’s money with the claim that will help the poor is communism. There is a huge difference, even in the effects of the two strategies. In communism, the poor feel entitled to other people’s money, and they have no incentive to improve their own performance. With charity, many poor people try to raise themselves above the level of needing charity.
In 1960, South Korea had a GDP equal to subSaharan Africa’s. Quit studying the poor to figure out how they can stop being poor. Study those who started from the same low base and have built one hell of an economy.
The Roman Catholic clergy has an awful lot to answer for in underachieving regions of the world. Pacifism and transfer economics only work in western academia. The rest of us have to live in the real world.
When individuals and small local groups help the poor, it’s “concern for the poor”. When large governments “help” the poor, it’s communism.
The pope is a communist but won’t admit it. Now about that “papal infallibility.....”