He is the one who made comments about his economic beliefs, and did so as Pope…and now our Marxist President has glomed onto those comments as his talking points. I’m sorry, but that horse done left the barn. I wish he’d never said any of this, but he did, and it’s out there, and it’s now fodder for the Obama spin machine on income inequality and all of the rest of the redistributionist program. Sorry, that’s a fact.
BUT No, he’s not a marxist for sure, but he has bought into some marxist ideas about free markets and free enterprise. I don’t think anyone said anything more than that, and I do not think that is possibly out of context. He really does think free enterprise is all about greed, and must be regulated by some kind of angels of power, I presume government. There’s a name for that, and it ain’t free enterprise…….
It is a scandal that our President has latched onto some of what the Pope has said (wrt economic matters) to further his (Obama’s) agenda. But the Pope can’t be beholden to what others may or may not do with his words.
Again, after all of this bru-ha-ha, all “we” have proven is that the Pope associates with Marxists, and calls some (the ones he knows personally) “good”. Again, big whoop. He’s a priest, he’s supposed to associate with sinners, as a representative of Christ. And as little Jeremiah pointed out upthread, good people can see the good in others, evil can only see evil; I would only add that also, good people are willing to be generous with an estimation of good in others.
At least kind people are willing to do that. Maybe that’s a bit too naïve for some, but I don’t care if one wishes to be so judgmental. Regardless, at worse, naïveté is at least not a sin, and the type of naïveté we’re talking about here is economic naïveté, NOT within the purview of the Pope’s mandate. Again, for the third time, his job is to lead souls to Christ, not convert people out of Marxism.
As far as his opinion about free market enterprise, who knows, maybe his experience of “capitalism” has been forever colored by his Latin American experience. That is, forever damaged.
At the end of the day, he’s not a Marxist and therefore not promoting Marxism. He’s allowed to be wrong about economics while still being an effective witness for Christ.