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?
My wife is Catholic and I am not. She would call me at work several times a day to give me updates on the Pope’s visit. I finally quit answering the phone and told her I was in meetings.
Your frothing put-downs are so tiresome.
“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. “
For those who think Francis should stick to church teaching and the spirituality of his flock will inevitably be disappointed.
The first ever Jesuit priest elected pope can’t change his nature, not at his advanced age.
I think you missed the point, which I took to mean that religious priests should not be using their religious standing to pontificate on hot-button political issues, whether from the right or the left.
I think VDH simply used Sanders and Cruz (fairly, in my opinion) to define the two opposite poles of the political spectrum, which they do represent.
Why don't you grow up and see who started it. You're the second dweeb to attack me out of nowhere this morning. You're frothy. I'm just doing what Trump does, attack those who attack me.
Many, if not most of those dissidents are Catholic. Since Obama sucked up to Castro, the crackdowns have been even harsher. I was shocked and dismayed that Francis didn’t champion the cause of Castro’s most vulnerable and abused victims. I felt ill just thinking about it.
To be fair, my liberal non-Catholic Christian friends and acquaintances are the exact same way. They have a warped, twisted view of Cuba that is very positive and uncritical. They thought it was great that Elian was sent back at gun point. For them, Cuba is better than the US. Francis shares this view; he was far more critical of us than of them/the Castros.
I agree with you on VDH/Cruz, who lobs a throwaway line bomb at Ted Cruz (and Bernie Sanders?!) at the end. Totally forced, gratuitous and inappropriate. And the analogy to a priest (SRSLY?!) makes no sense whatsoever. I think VDH has a Trump thorn in his gOpE side and this causes him to lash out at Ted Cruz?!
I didn't take it that way, not sure how that would work, but I'll take your word for it now.
Thin skin much?
I am just sick to death of constantly encountering your ‘colorfully’ worded insults. They degrade the site.
The only reason he got such wall to wall coverage was because he said and did the things that the left and the press wanted. The two times he did something decent - when he met with Kim and when he visited the Little Sisters of the Poor - he did them secretly because he didn’t want to be seen doing something the left might not like. Popularity with the powers that be is everything to this guy.
As am I. Couldn't agree with you more!
you cannot possibly underestimate my indifference to what you are sick to death of. And ironically, you invite that which you claim to be sick of. How smart of you is that? I’d say not very.
Let the record show again, YOU started this. YOU. Period.
Haha. Yet not sufficiently indifferent to simply ignore it. This word, ‘indifferent,’ it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Since I was asked upthread about this, and I respect your thoughts and opinion, I'll add to my earlier reply. I agree that VDH's primary point is that a religious leader should refrain from speaking out about hot-button political issues, and particularly when using language associated with the FAR LEFT of the host country, during such a "religious" visit.
IMHO, then using political figures as an analogy and Ted Cruz as the example of the opposite pole of this fabricated spectrum, with this higly "religious" undertone to it, from a blatant Communist (Sanders), is extreme, forced and stupid. First, neither Cruz nor Sanders are religious figures, so the analogy (religious leaders shouldn't weigh in on hot-button political issues) is completely screwed up from the very beginning.
When conservatives on FR allow the media's "Palinization" of Ted Cruz into some extreme, right-wing, wacko bird, crazy, we're all screwed.
+1
The only thing missing from that post is Q.E.D.
I am glad to have improved upon weird and creepy.
oh i know what indifferent means, perhaps you don’t. I am not indifferent to your misplaced unprovoked attack - but I am indeed indifferent to the little internal psychoses you suffer with that precipitated it.
Two different things. Sorry to over estimate you.
If it’s weird and creepy, I’ll call it that way. If it’s a tight, flowing, flawless argument that eloquently and definitively proves its point, I’ll call that too.
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.