Posted on 07/14/2015 5:15:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo Morales, presented Pope Francis with a gift — a carved wooden hammer-and-sickle cross on which the figure of Christ is crucified.
The Vatican announced that the pope had not been informed in advance about the gift. And some commentators said that photos of the pope and Morales show that the pope was actually offended. That was a false — probably wishful — interpretation. The pope himself later announced that he was keeping the hammer-and-sickle crucifix and taking it home, saying, “I understand this work. For me it wasn’t an offense.”
And “Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi . . . said he personally wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift” (the Guardian).
The pope’s acceptance of Morales’s gift — along with his attacks on capitalism during his Latin American tour — further confirms one of the most troubling moral developments of our time: The Roman Catholic Church is currently led by a man whose social, political, and economic views have been shaped by leftism more than by any other religious or moral system.
It also reconfirms what is probably the single most important development one needs to understand in order to make sense of the contemporary world: The most dynamic religion of the past hundred years has been leftism, not Christianity, not Islam, not any other traditional religion. Indeed, regarding traditional religions, leftism has influenced them — particularly Christianity and Judaism — far more than they have influenced the Left. Mainstream Protestant Christianity, much of Catholicism (especially in Latin America, where Pope Francis lived his whole life before becoming pope), and most of non-Orthodox Judaism have become essentially liberal/Left movements with religious (and in the case of Judaism, ethnic) identity.
In terms of evil committed, what is the difference between the hammer and sickle and the swastika? Would the pope receive, let alone keep, a Fascist, racist, or Nazi sculpture with a crucified Christ on it? Of course not. Yet the hammer and sickle represents more human suffering than all of them combined. The number of people enslaved and murdered under the hammer and sickle dwarfs the number of people enslaved and murdered by any other doctrine in history.
To make things worse, Pope Francis received this gift from a man (Morales) wearing a picture of Che Guevara on his jacket. Is that, too, not worthy of condemnation by the Vatican? Che Guevara devoted his life to undermining human liberty, and to killing innocents in the name of Communism.
The only institutions that can resist the left-wing takeover of contemporary life are religious ones. When they fail, upon which institutions can we depend? What if, in a visit to an American museum, American artist Andres Serrano had presented Pope Francis with a gift — his work of art, Piss Christ — that features a crucifix in a jar of Serrano’s urine?
Would the pope have accepted it? Would he have brought it home?
There could not have been a gift that more accurately represents this pope’s value system than Christ crucified on a hammer and sickle. First, in a literal sense, that is exactly what Communists have done wherever they have assumed power — crucified Christ by working to violently destroy Christianity and murder Christians. Second, in a figurative sense, the gift represents the mélange of Christianity and Marxism, precisely what much of the Church — again, especially in Latin America, and especially in the person of this pope — stands for.
My heart breaks for the millions of Catholics who feel that their beloved Church is being led over a moral and religious cliff by a leftist pope and innumerable other leftists among cardinals, bishops, and parish priests.
Though I am not a Catholic, my heart breaks too. The only institutions that can resist the left-wing takeover of contemporary life are religious ones. When they fail, upon which institutions can we depend?
Tragically, we cannot turn to the contemporary Catholic Church. When the pope keeps a hammer-and-sickle crucifix; when the pope declares free-market capitalism, the one economic system that has lifted masses of people out of poverty, to be largely evil (“the dung of the devil”); when Cuba’s Cardinal Jaime Ortega declares that there are no political prisoners in Cuba; and when the pope issues an encyclical on global warming while the oldest Christian communities in the world are exterminated, it is clear that while one can still turn to individual Catholic priests and lay leaders for moral guidance, one cannot turn to the Church and its pope for moral guidance. On the contrary. One must fight back.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His book, The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, was published by Regnery. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
You can’t tell me I’m wrong without judging me, the very thing you condemn.
There’s a word for that.
Hypocrisy comes to mind.
Nonsense. A sinful priest can still administer the Host.
Would the pope receive, let alone keep, a Fascist, racist, or Nazi sculpture with a crucified Christ on it? Of course not. Yet the hammer and sickle represents more human suffering than all of them combined. The number of people enslaved and murdered under the hammer and sickle dwarfs the number of people enslaved and murdered by any other doctrine in history.
I have nutty ideas? Hey, that’s getting personal; your post oughta be removed.
Sorry, the Church has a long tradition of intellectual discussion and debate. You must know that because you’re on these posts day and night. Some of that I see as a continuation of the Jewish tradition of discussion and debate (and debate and debate).
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
On the surface it would appear that this says we should never make a judgment. Yet in other places we are told this: 1Th 5:21 prove all things; hold fast that which is good;
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.This is the part many people leave out. What ever metric I use to assess another I must expect to have the exact same metric used on me.
Mat 7:3 And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? This is the other verse that people like to throw out with out thinking about the interior consequence. Socrates put it this way: ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ (The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.)This can be take at least two ways:
1) Have I examined my own life have I judged my own actions, my own thoughts? Have I examined my conscience?
The second is just as important.
2) Have I allowed others to stand in judgment of me? Is there someone or some group I trust enough to sit in judgment of what I have done or what I believe?
Do I surround myself with people that challenge me, or am I surrounded by sycophants that march in mental lockstep with me?
We must have people in our life that love and care for us enough to challenge us.
Pro 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
So.... Are Catholics OK then with a priest serving them communion after he had been molesting boys the night before?
If the parishioner had molested boys after confession and before communion, would that not be considered mortal sin? And would he then not technically be prohibited from taking communion?
Then why would it be acceptable for a priest to be exempt and allowed to consecrate the host and serve communion? I wonder what Jesus thinks about that? Being called down from heaven into the host by hands lifted up that had been engaging in such henous sin?
The chance that a recipient would know that a priest had committed a sin prior to receiving would probably be very low to impossible to know. All I am saying is that I can still receive Communion from him - it does not negate the priest’s ability to advance the miracle of Holy Communion.
A priest not in the state of grace cannot receive Communion - you either know this or refuse to accept this so I don’t think we need to discuss this any further.
I did not say he could not...did you read the canon?
IT SAYS the INTENTION not sin ...
I love your sense of ironic humor.
Also, I have NEVER MET any Christian who thinks Scripture is a "book of laws." Never.
Most of the Christians I know divide Scripture into these categories: Law, History, Poetry, Prophesy (major & minor), Gospels, Epistles, and Prophesy (again).
You really should meet more people.
"Qualifications of church leaders and what should be done when Catholics priests are "bad men."
You did not address the subject and you did not address my challenge.
Ummmm so sin only counts if the "recipient " knows about it..
Your point makes no sense. Who do you take Communion from? Is he a sinner? Do you question him before you take the piece of bread?
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
And yet Catholics allow them to be their leaders.
Are you ok knowing that your minister who may be serving you Communion is a molester? He may be, you know.
I wouldn't step foot in any "church" if I even suspected the minister was a molester. I wouldn't step foot in a "church" belonging to a denomination that allowed a molester to continue as a pastor even if it was not in the local church. Can you say the same?
Don’t move the goalposts.
Priests are said to be able to call Christ down and confect Him in the eucharist.
Non-Catholics do NOT make that claim of their ministers, nor do our pastors handle the elements and lay them on our tongue.
Nor did you answer the question.
Why is it OK for a priest in mortal sin to serve communion but the laity in mortal sin not be able to receive it?
The Church knew about many of these men and did nothing more than move them around to protect them and endanger more children.
The church is therefore culpable in those crimes.
And they still let the priest serve communion but forbade a parishioner with mortal sin in his life to receive it.
It’s called a double standard. ie. HYPOCRISY.
Maybe Malachi was right. Maybe this is Peter the Roman.
You truly make no sense. And I notice you refuse to answer whether your minister or layman who gives you a little piece of Wonder Bread is a sinner or not. How do you know he’s not diddling little boys?
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.