Posted on 10/03/2015 1:11:49 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
There was a time when even if you were not Catholic, and even if you strenuously disagreed with Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, you could still expect the pontiffs to be on the right side of world events. Yet, we've come a long way from John Paul II joining with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to oppose the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism. Those who believed that Communism "fell" with the Berlin Wall were premature, and didn't realize that it was merely going underground, taking on new forms and putting forward new faces to the public at large. One of these faces is Pope Francis, an Argentinean radical whose elevation to the papacy represented the triumph of radical Leftism in the Catholic Church's hierarchy. Francis' radicalism, as well as his corresponding anti-Christianity, were on open display this past week during his visit to the United States, during which he addressed Congress, "preached" at St. Patrick's Cathedral, and participated in a fake, socially engineered "spontaneous" photo op with a child of illegal immigrants that could be used to browbeat Americans for seeking to defend our own borders.
The wrongheadedness of Pope Francis is absolutely stunning. Far from being an advocate for moral good in this world, he is merely just another left-wing political pundit of the religious variety, who tries to trade off of false and unscriptural notions about "Christianity" to push an essentially secular, man-centered, God-replacing system.
Despite all of the nominal opposition to "religion" that supposedly characterizes the Left, we must nevertheless understand that "religion" has been one of the institutions into which the Left has had to most long-term success at infiltrating. The Left has been very successful at implanting the belief in the minds of the average person that "genuine" Christianity consists of various left-wing political agendas covered with a Christian veneer. When real Christians come along and point out from the Bible that these agendas are deceptive, false, erroneous, damaging, and dangerous, they're decried, ironically, as "unchristian." The Left has become quite adept at shifting the basis of judgment of right and wrong – by professing Christians – away from the Bible and toward the predominant left-wing social and economic platitudes mouthed by their creatures in the media and politics. And Pope Francis is squarely at the center of current efforts by the radical socialistic Left to perpetuate this state of affairs.
One of the predominant themes of Francis' tenure has been that of "social justice." What is "social justice"? It is everything, and yet nothing, all at once. It is essentially a catch-all term used by left-wingers to describe any state of affairs where they want to undermine the prevailing paradigm and replace it with their own. If a society is capitalistic, then for the sake of "social justice," it must be undermined and converted to a socialistic one. The death penalty applied to vicious and violent criminals presents the need for "social justice" to "understand" and "give dignity to" those who face the ultimate penalty for their horrid actions. "Social justice" demands that property be taken away from those who sweated and sacrificed to obtain it to be given to those who have not. "Social justice" demands that rich nations throw open their borders to any and all who want to come and partake of those nations' welfare benefits...er...opportunities. Yet, "social justice" at the same time is really a nothing term. It doesn't actually define any objective meaning – it is merely invested with whatever meaning is convenient for the user at the time.
There's a reason for this. If you have to add any kind of adjective to the term "justice" – like "social" or "racial" or "economic" – then it ceases to be genuine justice. Instead, it becomes a divisive, self-serving injustice – and those on the Left know that. To propagate "social" justice, by necessity you have to perpetrate an injustice against innocent people who have done nothing more than belong to a social or economic group that is disfavored by the radical Left.
This can be seen in the agenda that Pope Francis stumps for. Let's take his opposition to capitalism as a place to start. Now, I will grant that hard-core, Ayn Rand-style Objectivist capitalism which genuinely eschews any and all concern for anyone other than the capitalist, is an un-Christian travesty. Nevertheless, the Bible does teach private property, inheritance, hard work as the means of advancing, and private charity to help those who are genuinely in need. It does not teach the sort of socialism taught by Pope Francis and other religious liberals.
Never once does the Bible, in either testament, suggest that helping the poor is supposed to take place by using the power of government to take from some people to give to others. The Bible never once enjoins wealth redistribution. Instead, the emphasis is on voluntary charity, given because the giver sees the need and desires to please God by helping another. Religious liberals will often point to the condition of the early church in Jerusalem in which it was said,
"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (Acts 4:32)
Yet, we should note a few things. First, it is commonly understood that this was a particular condition arising due to the specific circumstances found in this early church due to the persecution they endured – it was not normative for all Christians at all times, which is shown by the fact that nowhere else does the Bible ever mention this sort of "commonality of property." Second, the giving of goods and the commonality of the money was voluntary, not enforced by any government. Further, we ought to observe that immediately after this, we see the incident with Ananias and Sapphira, who sold some land, but held back part of the price while claiming to be giving the full amount. They died not because they didn't give the full amount, but because they lied about it, pretending to be spiritual when they were not. Peter even tells them that while it was still in their hands, the price for the land was theirs – it did not belong to anyone in some common ownership,
"Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." (Acts 5:4)
There is simply no biblical basis for the religious liberal arguments for socialism or communism. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear that private property is God's general plan for the use and stewardship of this earth by mankind. The example was set in the division of the land of Israel – each family received a parcel, and this was to be passed on down the family line indefinitely. The years of Jubilee – so often appealed to, yet misunderstood, by liberals – was not about redistributing wealth. Actually, it primarily centered around returning land back to the original owners should that land have been alienated for the payment of a debt or other adverse economic circumstance. Reverting the land back to the original families who owned it is actually an implicit affirmation of God's plan of private property, while at the same time disallowing the unscrupulous from being able to permanently dispossess the poor of their ancestral land. Hence, both private property and inheritance – two bugaboos for left-wingers – are affirmed by the Scriptures.
What about giving to the poor? The Bible certainly teaches it – but at the same time, makes it plain that this charity should be for the deserving poor, those who are genuinely in need and who are unable to provide for themselves. On the other hand, the Bible has this to say for those who simply refuse to work for a living, even though they'd be able to,
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (II Thessalonians 3:10)
Whoa, sounds pretty rough, eh? Yet, it merely echoes numerous of the proverbs which emphasize hard work and the steady building of wealth over and against trying to get something for nothing,
"The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin." (Proverbs 10:16)
"Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase." (Proverbs 13:11)
"In all labour there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury." (Proverbs 14:23)
"The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour." (Proverbs 21:25)
Genuine charity was to be reserved for those, such as the fatherless and widows, who were unable to provide for themselves. Charity was never meant to be a government giveaway program that encourages able-bodied people to sit around all day doing nothing while collecting a check, which is essentially what every single socialistic program ever invented by any government anywhere has done.
Private charity has a long and glorious history in the Christian world. There have always been organizations and individuals who have helped out the impoverished, the orphans, the widows, the disabled. There are still such organizations and individuals today, who give billions of dollars each year to help others. Unfortunately, the government-enforced socialism preferred by folks like Pope Francis actually serves as a hindrance to this private charity. Not only do the taxes required for the welfare state simply take away money that could be given by charitable individuals more efficiently and more directly, but government often acts as a direct impediment to private charity. Observe how many times we have seen news stories in recent months about individuals who have been threatened, and even arrested, by the police acting on the behalf of local governments in liberal-dominated cities, all for things like giving food to the homeless. It's almost like the government is trying to stamp out the competition or something. Far from promoting the sort of charity born of love that the Bible teaches, socialism suppresses this charity and seeks to funnel it through the cold, indifferent, unloving mechanism of the government.
This isn't the only area where Pope Francis is in opposition to the Bible he claims to believe. Let's take his attitude towards gun ownership (and, implicitly, the God-given right to self-defense). Francis says that Christians can't be gun owners or manufacturers. Doing so makes them "hypocrites," and places them outside the bounds of genuine faith.
Yet, what did Jesus say to His disciples as He was preparing them for the time when He would be crucified, resurrected, and then He would ascend back to His heavenly throne, leaving them here on this earth?
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
What's this? Jesus actually told His disciples to buy swords, even if it meant having to sell their other possessions to do so. Sorry liberals, but there's simply no way to get around this in any sort of intellectually honest fashion.
Unlike with the radical Religious Left, which only seems to support gun ownership when it applies to Marxist rebels trying to overthrow non-communist governments, this gun ownership by Christians is not for the purpose of overthrowing governments or striking aggressively at their enemies. Rather, it is for self-defense – another principle that has strong biblical support. For instance, if someone is trying to break into your home at night,
"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him." (Exodus 22:2)
Right there is the castle doctrine, 3,500 years before anyone ever heard of the term. And then there's the example of Nehemiah,
"Therefore set I in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows. And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. And it came to pass, when our enemies heard that it was known unto us, and God had brought their counsel to nought, that we returned all of us to the wall, every one unto his work. And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah. They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon." (Nehemiah 4:13-17)
Here we see the Israelites individually arming themselves to protect themselves from enemies who wanted to infiltrate and invade their land and put an end to the work they were doing. What about defending those whose lives are in danger?
"If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to everyman according to his works?" (Proverbs 24:11-12)
Clearly, the notion of "Christian pacifism" is unsubstantiated from the Scriptures themselves. Pope Francis is simply parroting wrongheaded religious liberal platitudes. Gun ownership is not "immoral." What is immoral is refusing to defend yourself, your loved ones, and other innocent people from danger to life and limb.
Now let's turn to another major issue that Francis weighed in on – illegal immigration. Like most other left-wingers, Francis seems to believe that it is the duty of the United States to allow millions of law-breaking illegal immigrants to flood across our borders, take our jobs, bring in diseases that we thought had been extirpated from our territory, and commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Throughout his tour of the United States, Francis repeatedly expressed this sentiment in some form or fashion (it doesn't hurt that the "potential Americans" he was urging us to keep are overwhelmingly Catholic, I'm sure).
Keep in mind, however, that this sentiment was being expressed by a man who governs a city-state that has some of the tightest immigration laws on the planet and which is completely surrounded by a large stone wall guarded by Swiss Guards with automatic weapons.
Those on the radical Religious Left will often appeal to passages in the Pentateuch to support their political position in support of illegal immigrants, such as,
"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 22:21)
"Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 23:9)
And,
"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him." (Leviticus 19:33)
Certainly, these call for the right treatment of foreigners who are sojourning in your land. You don't simply mistreat people because they do not belong to your nation. I agree with this. But while they quote these passages, religious liberals forget some other relevant passages found in the same source,
"One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exodus 12:49)
"And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land." (Numbers 9:14)
"And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." (Exodus 12:48)
If a foreigner wished to reside in Israel, then they were going to be subject to Israel's laws. If a foreigner wished to participate in Israelite religious and civil society, they had to "assimilate" to Israel's customs and standards. If we wish to apply this to America today (and liberals can't find fault with this, since they're trying to do the same thing with the earlier passages provided above), then that means that immigrants to this country need to obey our laws and need to assimilate themselves to our customs, laws, and norms. By definition an illegal immigrant has not done and is not doing this, and therefore does not fall under these protections. We are well within our rights, both biblically and secularly, to ask them to leave and to use various persuasions to get them to do so.
There are many, many other areas that we could point to when showing just how un-Christian Pope Francis really is. For instance, there's his pandering to Islam by allowing Islamic prayers and Qur'an reading in the Vatican itself. And who can forget his absolute failure to mention the Christians being murdered daily by Muslims in the Middle East? What about his support for one-worldism – something which Scripture repeatedly tells us is absolutely contrary to God's will for mankind (Gen. 11:1-9, Deut. 32:8, Acts 17:26-27) and which is, in fact, the prelude for the rise of the great enemy of God's people in the end times, the antichrist? Then there is Francis' repetition of his belief in global warming and the "need" for deindustrializing the First World, despite the fact that we know that the data used to support the global warming "hockey stick" was heavily tampered with, and that the vast bulk of the surface temperature data used to support the theory is based on "estimated values" rather than actual data. Why is the pope intruding himself into the debate on the side of alarmists who knowingly twist the data to support their particular social agenda (which is, after all, a LIE – something the pope would presumably say he was against)?
In conclusion, the sort of religious and "Christian" liberalism that Pope Francis and millions of others follow is about as far from genuine Christianity as...well...any other kind of socialism. They do exactly what they claim the "Religious Right" does – they take Scripture out of context, or even simply rely on popular-but-unbiblical sentiments, to support their particular social and economic agenda. In this case, their agenda is immoral and destructive – to individual lives, to families, to entire nations. Socialism has never done anything but bring misery and poverty to those upon whom it is afflicted. Anyone who claims to love others and care about the good of the poor simply CANNOT retain any credibility as long as they support the sort of socialism and religious liberalism that Francis and his like-minded brethren follow.
Francis has done for the Catholic Church what Barack Hussein has done for the USA.
In short, this current Pope “prates of Jesus but means Marx.”
This pope is no servant of Jesus the Christ. He’s an outright wolf in sheep’s clothing or an apostate. I pray for God to have mercy on his soul.
The church needs the Holy Spirit’s protection during the current “Argentinian captivity”. [allusion to the capture of the church by political forces, such as at Avignon]
As far as taking care of the ‘poor’, let him open the Vatican vaults and sell off just a pittance of the treasure that was taken from others for centuries by the Church and hoarded by his group—let us see how really big hearted he really is
Heh. I like that.
You have captured the essence of ‘organized’ religion vs. the true Christian spirituality.
The Roman Catholic Church competed for wealth and plunder with the British Royals - that was the reason for the ruckus.
The Pope is just one in a history of power hungry autocrats dressed all fancy and taking advantage of the faithful.
If true, that could make Pope Francis the False Prophet of Revelation.
I didn’t remember any of this from my history lessons, but it is a good read.
http://religion.answers.com/history/a-history-of-the-protestant-reformation
see my post #10
Great phrase! Argentinian Captivity...
The problem is that the Argentinian Captivity is backed mostly by Germans (obviously, in alliance with many Latin American German-inspired Liberation Theology types) and Francis is completely at their feet.
He’s not a smart or well-educated man, and in fact boasts of his ignorance. But also, like any Argentinian, he boasts about his lack of Spanish blood (his parents were Italian immigrants) and has total contempt for the Spanish-derived Catholic Church in Latin America.
So a lot of the Argentinian Captivity probably wants to elect its new pope from somewhere on the Rhine.
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.