Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/25/2025 6:22:39 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Pope Francis passed away two days ago, on Easter Monday. He had been the leader of the Catholic Church for just over 12 years. He presented himself as a well-intentioned and deeply religious man, none of which I ever doubted. But good intentions are the paving stones of the road to hell. I often tried to find some positive things about Francis so that I could admire him. But unfortunately I think that his overall impact on the world and on the church was overwhelmingly negative.
Thinking that he was working to uplift the poor and downtrodden of the world, Francis accepted all the most destructive prescriptions of the international Left. I’m sorry, but I don’t find that acceptable in a man claiming to be a major religious leader and asserting moral authority to tell others how to lead a good life. After a century and more of the destructive horrors of socialism, people in major leadership roles in society have a responsibility to learn about that and understand it and not continue to spread it. Even with the Soviet Union long gone, Cuba and North Korea and Venezuela and China are still out there to observe. We have a responsibility to know about them — why they fail, why they perpetuate poverty, why their people suffer. Supposedly good intentions have long since ceased to be a sufficient excuse for ignorance of something so important.
In general, Francis embraced the collectivist view of economic relations. He began with advocating generosity and compassion toward the poor, but then took that to the next step and asserted the Marxist principle that private property is essentially theft. This is from his 2020 Encyclical “Fratelli Tutti” (We Are All Brothers):
119. In the first Christian centuries, a number of thinkers developed a universal vision in their reflections on the common destination of created goods. This led them to realize that if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it. Saint John Chrysostom summarizes it in this way: “Not to share our wealth with the poor is to rob them and take away their livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but theirs as well.”
In multiple places, Francis blamed the ills of the world on what he called “unfettered” or “unbridled” capitalism, and asserted that the poverty of poor countries was caused by pursuit of money in rich countries. As an example, here is a piece in the Guardian from 2015 reporting on a speech that Francis had given in Bolivia:
Unbridled capitalism is the “dung of the devil,” says Pope Francis. . . . Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money “the dung of the devil,” and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labour for developed countries. . . . [Francis] said he supported their efforts to obtain “so elementary ad undeniably necessary a right as that of the three ‘Ls’: land, lodging and labour.”
If Francis ever recognized the critical role of private property in enabling the poor to lift themselves up out of poverty, I can’t find it anywhere.
Nowhere did Francis go more astray than on the subject of climate change. His 2015 Encyclical “Laudato Si” smacks of Gaia worship and Neo-paganism. It contains essentially every climate-related talking point of the environmental Left, and reads like it was ghostwritten for the Pope by Greenpeace. The Encyclical basically accepts the entire climate scam uncritically, perhaps most importantly the piece about climate change disproportionately harming the poor. Francis never figured out that expensive energy harms the poor far more than a degree of temperature one way or the other ever possibly could. Excerpt:
Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited.
Most recently, Francis had decided to weigh in in a big way on the issue of mass migration — and once again, he picked the wrong side. On January 21, shortly after President Trump’s second inauguration, Pope Francis reportedly sent him a congratulatory message, but at the same time called Trump’s plans for large-scale deportations of illegal aliens a “disgrace.” Axios reported on that day that Francis condemned “deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment ... .” In nothing that I can find did Francis ever recognize that there might be any limits to how many migrants America and the EU countries ought to take in. Was his position that once a migrant gets in, however illegally, then we are stuck with that person forever? It seemed never to occur to him that the poverty of the poor countries stems from failure of those places to honor rights in private property and free exchange (otherwise known as “capitalism” — or maybe “unfettered capitalism”).
Cardinals from around the world are now gathering in Rome to select Francis’s successor. Apparently Francis has appointed approximately two-thirds of those who will participate in this process. I hope that these people will have the good sense to back the church away from the woke adventures on which Francis embarked, but I have no confidence that that will occur.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
I expect that the next pope will be a marxist too.
Shorter: The commie pope was a dope.
He wasn’t a friend of Catholics or the Catholic Church, either.
Clergy who advocate handing out other people’s wealth are always loved.
He was no friends to Evangelicals, either. Not to speak badly of the dead, but in his life, this pope didn’t believe in “love your neighbor as yourself.”
Pope Francis counted among his trusted advisors, Jeffery Sachs and the crackpot warmists from Potsdam Institute, Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf. The next Pope might want to try some serious adults instead.
Serious adults like JD Vance, maybe? That would be a start.
BTTT
OSAMA bin Ladin was a deeply religious man.
When we are forced to hand over our money we are robbed of our ability to Christian giving.
Francis, at his core, IMHO, was a Marxist. Francis believed that the poor could be eliminated by the State, helped by the
State, transported to better nations to be fed by the State, and cared for by the State. This leads to Marxist conflict with Christianity, and why the two cannot truly co-exist.
Marxism believes the State to be supreme, and thus all loyalty and sovereignty must be to the State. The people believe that the state will solve their problems, and thus all loyalty and expectations come to the state. Ergo, the State takes the place of God and personal responsibility and accountability become of the State.
Jesus said, “The poor will always be with you” and mentioned the gifts of the poor to the poor “She gave everything she had” or “Give up your wealth and follow the lord” and a “It’s easier to put a camel through the eye of needle than a Rich man to enter heaven” (forgive me for any misquotes or paraphrasing. Jesus was clearly putting the responsibility to help the sick and the poor on individuals, not the State. Jesus was clearly stating that there was a God, and we would be judged by our actions to the least of our peers. None of this is compatible with “Marxism” wherein only the state matters.
Pope that are Marxists cannot, IMHO, be with Jesus because they promote the ‘State’. Personal sacrifice and a relationship with God are really needed, to reach the kingdom. That’s how I see it, I am certain many disagree, but I see Marxism and Christianity as incompatible.
He was no friend of the Catholic church, either.
Marxists (and Christian imposters) are no friend of anyone.
True charity is a voluntary giving out of love from one person, and acceptance from another who is needy in the same spirit of love. When these conditions are met, God will offer graces to both souls that will bring them closer to Him. Taking from one person and giving to another is a perversion of this, a satanic caricature and not only leads to no blessings in this world, but as you state deprives the giver of the resources to perform genuine charity.
Even tho he was an evil man, I would not celebrate his death. My preference for such is that he live long enough to see all he has done burn and then die in misery.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
. . . ‘austere religious scholar. . . .’ to quote the Washington ComPost. .
Another destructive marxist is quite possible. The problem is that the Catholic hierarchy is permeated with agnostic homosexuals. They will vote as a bloc and will attempt to appoint one of their own .The Church if it is to prosper as a moral and spiritual beacon must abolish mandatory celibacy, disband the Jesuit order and purge all homosexuals from the clergy.Throughout its history the Church has faced many external and internal torments. Righteous, serious men had the courage to take definitive action. Such men are now sorely needed.
Frankie was a Red Commie Pope.
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.