You could, possibly submit polite request to frequent religion forum posters here, such as the one who originated this thread, to not bring the material here to FreeRepublic, but instead have those items discussed elsewhere, if it belongs to only some select group.
Don't bring it to the discussion forum of FR, if discussion of the issues are troubling when not all agree with one's own preferred views. And don't whine and tell us here on FR that Roman "Catholic" issues are nobody's "business" except for Roman Catholics, not when there is the backdrop of that one church in particular claiming that they (and they only) are the 'one true church' and that all must submit to the bishop of Rome, etc.
As it is, this present bishop of the Church of Rome has been blending politics with religion, and presently, it appears the Vatican in wider sense has allowed whatever trappings of moral authority they may have to be enlisted in Statist environmentalism, which environmentalism in general (not just the Vatican-approved sort) is being leveraged by Statists to further their control over the lives of entire nations, the UN Agenda 21 crowd being among prime examples of what the mentality of 'control' is.
That makes it everyone "business", whether we like it or not.
Yet on the other hand, where else on the web can there be found a single forum which allows forum moderation which has produced the extent of openness to either side of this type intra-religious discussions of Christianity as is found here on FR?
That this forum is figuratively speaking, both as as good as it at times can be, and also not better than it presently is, is due to the participants, and what they chose to say, or not to say.
In this comment, #58 it was noted that many [Roman] Catholics don't like the way Bergoglio has often been choosing to present what is ostensibly supposed to be fully "Christian" message.
Where else would one be able to learn that many held those sentiments in regards to the recent focus of the Latin Church, the topmost leaders of which having seemed to have cultivated within their highest ranks those who appear to borrow from UN Agenda 21.
Here ya' go --without looking up who said the following-- can you see what is being promoted? Read the below excerpt and contemplate what it means. What if people took this seriously, as in this portion were to be among their marching orders of the day;
To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority,...
Whoever said that, in that was leaning strongly towards "world political authority" to be supreme over national authority. Who would end up disarmed? Everyone? equally?
Dream on!
And in the meantime...should there be a world political authority to be over the United States to "guarantee" protection of the environment and to "regulate migration"?
So far, here of late, to the extent that has been occurring through browbeating and emotionalism of the Western democracies into taking in by the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, and even millions (when the view is extended back far enough to encompass the past few decades), the later arrivals show no real indications of desire to assimilate into the cultures which they have been veritably invading, en masse, but instead are more looking towards transforming those cultures into having the same values of the nations which they once called home, but which they left.
I can't speak for defconw, but if I were to say something like, "Leave us alone," I'd add, "Unless you're prepared to sit down and do some heavy digging and careful parsing."
"Parsing" wasn't always something people like Clinton did to obscure meanings and weasel around.