The Pope and politics
Is Pope Frances a leftist, and should we even be talking about him in the context of politics? Or, as Kemberlee Kaye writes at Legal Insurrection, is it better to think of him this way:
Pope Francis is not speaking as a politician. He’s not an economist. He’s never claimed to be any of the above. He speaks as a moral authority…
If we could extricate ourselves from the political cesspool for a measly ten minutes, perhaps we could appreciate Pope Francis’ words of encouragement. Maybe we could heed the gentle reminder that we have a responsibility to be diligent stewards with what we’ve been entrusted. We might even be able to enjoy the perspective of an Argentinian who recognizes and reveres America’s long-standing tradition of religious freedom. We might even remember that we are all on a journey ”” irrespective of our partisan leanings, and that even those with which we disagree respond to truth and love.
And it’s this view I choose.
Here’s the view I choose.
You may notice I’ve written very little about Pope Francis on this blog. There are several reasons for that. First and foremost, I suppose, is that since I am a non-Christian and non-Catholic, a pope doesn’t grab my attention all that much. That’s just the way it is for me, although I’m well aware that millions and millions of people see it very differently.
The second reason is that I tend to think that we often seem to get the popes that match our times. Ever notice some sort of harmonic resonance between popes and other public figures of the day? For example, when Reagan and Thatcher were our secular leaders in the West, the Pope was John Paul II, also a strong anti-Communist. The anti-relativist and more traditional Pope Benedict came on the scene during the Bush/Blair era, and exited it while Obama’s tenure was in full swing.
Now we have Obama—and sure enough, Pope Francis comes along. Somehow it’s not a surprise that he’s in line with Obama in many ways.
Another point I’d like to make is that there’s no way for a pope to retreat from politics, unless he is going to speak on ritual matters only and never venture into a single more general statement. To paraphrase Madonna (not the Madonna, but Madonna Ciccone), we are living in a political world. When Pope Francis speaks of any world events or trends, it has political meaning and is a political statement, even if he tries to couch it in more neutral language.
Pope Francis is reported to have given an interview on the flight over here in which he explicitly denied being a liberal. Since the conversation was in Spanish, and the Pope is from Argentina, I’m not sure how he defines “liberal” but my guess is that it’s well to the left of the way we would define it in this country. He also said this:
It is I who follows the church ”¦ my doctrine on all this ”¦ on economic imperialism, is that of the social doctrine of the church.
“Economic imperialism” sure sounds like leftist language to me. Again, perhaps something got lost in translation. But my guess is that Pope Francis has been so steeped in the leftism of his Argentine milieu that he may not be aware of how much it has influenced him.
For Catholic believers, the Pope is supposed to be infallible. But my understanding of that principle is that it’s only the case when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra (see this), which is a formal process that is not happening here.
Pope Francis is speaking at least partly politically when he talks about climate change, because it is a hot-button political issue and no one can avoid political repercussions when it comes up, not even the Pope. Maybe especially not the Pope, because he influences a great many people every time he speaks on anything.
I think it’s fair to say that his beliefs aren’t much different from Benedict or any of our recent popes, but he puts a higher priority on the issues within Catholic teaching that line up with the American liberal.
As I stated in an earlier post, I was tired of feeling exasperation every time I read something about what the Pope said or did. So since January, I have determined to read his words directly (beginning with his closing statement to the Synod on the Family) and I have liked everything I’ve read. More than liked…felt encouraged and uplifted. I just watched the Pope’s address to the bishops and I thought it was excellent. I disagreed with one little thing regarding immigration, but isn’t disagreement to be expected? I have started reading Laudate Si, but haven’t waded into it enough to have an educated opinion. But I’ve always been comfortable being at odds with things that are embraced by the church but not necessary for faith and formation. A visiting priest once said the church will never be conservative and will never be liberal, in that you have to go so outside the bounds of that continuum before being excommunicated.
1. Argentinians who believe in free trade, less government regulation and private enterprise refer to themselves as liberales, and I have discussed this at length with some of them in person.
I’d peg him as a peronista.
2. “For Catholic believers, the Pope is supposed to be infallible.” No.
Fausta:
Why do you say “no”? I explain the infallibility doctrine as only referring to when he speaks ex cathedra (which he is not doing here), and provided a link to this, which lists the elements of when the infallibility doctrine applies:
So, what part of that is wrong?
The statement “For Catholic believers, the Pope is supposed to be infallible” is incorrect as of itself.
Your explanation of the infallibility doctrine is correct, but the statement above is incorrect.
Fausta:
Well, that’s why I explained it with the qualification and the links.
The reason I did it that way is that the first statement “the Pope is infallible” is what people often say, but it’s woefully incomplete and way too general. The sentence that followed was supposed to clear up that problem.
I guess it didn’t quite do that 🙂 .
This is the official word on infallibility, as posited on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by John Paul II
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm
The teaching office
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith “endowed with the authority of Christ.”416
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”417
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Short version, if Pope is discussing secular *things*
he is not infallible, ( eg climate), if he is teaching on faith & morals
catholics accept it as infallible.
Molly NH:
It is even more restrictive than that.
Catholic doctrine in general seems to be misunderstood by most people, Catholics included.
Not saying I agree with Catholic doctrine, but most of it is too profound and complex to catch most folks’ attention. It is a true philosophical system with amazing things to say about existence, and just as hard to grasp as Kant or Aristotle.
Heck, nine people out of ten have not the faintest idea what the immaculate conception is.
Nor do they have the faintest idea about the procreative and the unitive, which may be one of the most humane doctrines in the history of mankind, although widely derided even by most Catholics.
This pope and every pope knows this. And they especially know that we are living in an age presently which does not have the intellectual capacity to grasp Catholic doctrine.
The Sermon on the Mount is ageless and completely understandable. That is often the best any pope can “do” while waiting for another age to appear.
And that is not a bad thing to do.
The Pope is a Jesuit and the Jusuits are notorious for their liberal views.
When they failed to assasinate the office, they decided to take the office.. just as they did with Kirill and the Russian Orthodox church (and world federation of churches).
In the early 1990s and later on, Kirill was accused of having links to the KGB during much of the Soviet period, as were many members of the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy, and of pursuing the state’s interests before those of the Church
Codename was “Mikhailov”
I would suspect that things changed after russia assasinated their bookeeper Roberto Calvi in the 1980s around the time that they also fomented the assasination attempt of the anti-communist pope… (now we remember it with a cover that they didnt do that but that doing that was disinformation)
Calvi was a member of Licio Gelli’s illegal masonic lodge, P2, and members of P2 referred to themselves as frati neri or “black friars”. This led to a suggestion in some quarters that Calvi was murdered as a masonic warning because of the symbolism associated with the word “Blackfriars” – wiki
they have been working on this kind of thing since Stalin and the same period in the USA.
bella dodd talked about when she was the teachers union and CPUSA head, how she put communist operatives into the catholic church to destroy it from the inside (a confession we ignore)
Dodd autobiography
“In the 1930’s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within. The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops”
When she was an active party member, she had dealt with no fewer than four cardinals within the Vatican who were working for us [ie. the communist party” — Dr Alice von Hildebrand (theologian), Christian order magazine, the church in crisis, reprinted from “the latin mass” magazine.
Bella Dodd had refrained from detailing Communist efforts to undermine the Catholic Priesthood at the request of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, the person responsible for bringing Dodd back into the Roman Catholic Church
there is lots of stuff like this, and given it relates to the soviet games, it also has a crap load of other junk thrown in so that the average person would not be able to sort through it and would junk the whole thing as nutty conspiracy theory…
She gave lots of testimony to McCarthy and other commitees over time… most of that is now gone unless you read newspaper clippings. she was afraid for her life, and was offered protection as a lot of others ended up dead.
anyone wants to hear her talk of it in her own words can see youtube for things like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37HgRWTsGs0
but watch out, this area, since its of paramount interest to certain states that play super level games all the way up do death, lying and disinformatzia, and propaganda, and half truths, and all that are all over this area to basically have none of the left believe or pay attention… (And to mislead those that do into wacko land)
Ray Says: The Pope is a Jesuit and the Jusuits are notorious for their liberal views.
they are known for a lot of things… including being power hungry to the point of going after gallileo, having the inquisition, destroying alternative trade with the japans, programming children (the quote about give me a child was originally theirs), and so on and so forth.. .
bery bery bad reputation…
Tonawanda:
I think your characterization of the Pope is spot on.
Catholic doctrine is a wonderful, subtle and unbelievably deep thing, and you are right that few people understand it, and few even get the Catholicism 101 facts right. This general dumbing down of the population is reflected in the poor catechesis of Catholics just as it is reflected in the preponderance of low-information-voters in the civic world, and is at least as dangerous.
While I believe His Holiness has been somewhat careless or loose or however you want to characterize it with his extemporaneous speech, his formal pronouncements have been absolutely orthodox, and while he has placed an emphasis on taking care of the poor and other “social justice” issues, he has also clearly and unequivocally held up Catholic doctrine, including the unpopular bits, and has also strongly and continuously emphasized something all liberals and most Catholics would rather sweep under the rug: The existence and influence of Satan. It is something I’m convinced is a huge factor in the current cultural and political milieu of what still passes as Christendom.
Having said that, however, I’m not convinced all bishops and cardinals are so orthodox… many appear to be out-and-out heretics, and it has been surmised that one of the reasons Pope Benedict resigned was his realization that some of most troublesome appointments that need to be cleaned out were appointed by him. Of course, this is pure speculation.
Nevertheless, as a Catholic, I fully support the Pope and fully recognize his authority in terms of the moral and religious teachings of the Church. I have some issues with some of the things he’s said and done, but that doesn’t take away my respect for the man and especially for the office he holds.
Kemberlee Kaye:
“Maybe we could heed the gentle reminder that we have a responsibility to be diligent stewards with what we’ve been entrusted.”
The Pope’s poor have never been so unpoor (materially) as they are now. What the poor are – and the rich, and the great middle (speaking of the West) — are poor spiritually, morally. Francis, like the generals, is fighting the last war; like the social theorists, the last epidemic (social injustice).
Maybe we need a gentle reminder that we are responsible for our souls and have a responsibility to be not just forgiving of the sinner but uncompromising as to what is sin.
Neo-neocon:
‘we often seem to get the popes that match our times. Ever notice some sort of harmonic resonance between popes and other public figures of the day?”
True. And Perceptive. I believe though, that Popes often, in times of peril, are a match for the coming peril. Here I see Francis as woefully inadequate. Il Papa:
“Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence”
– Pope Francis
“…as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Muslims have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.”
– Pope Urban II (1095)
Pope Francis, a man of the times; not for the times.
Neo said:
“The second reason is that I tend to think that we often seem to get the popes that match our times.”
Interesting comment.
There might be a reason popes reflect the times. The Catholic church is competing for market share just like any other organization. The gospel and the values which the church holds might be eternal but they do very little good unless the church can attract followers who accept them and practice them. In a sense the church has to market itself just like any other product. The challenge for the church is to adapt its message to the culture while preserving those essential things which are unchangeable.
Persecutions of the Catholic Church and Pius XII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutions_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_Pius_XII
given what is transpiring now, it may be that francis sees who will win and is trying ot survive the long haul…
In the Soviet Union and mainland China, the Catholic Church largely ceased to exist, at least publicly, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
i would suspect that people who love the soviet stuff so much that they idolozie it put it on the xmas tree, give speeches saying how that is their favorite, etc… well, what would their position be to the church?
So as you might catch on, the separatoin of church and state is NOT an american thing the way its practiced and used here… its ANOTHER facet of soviet life americans are too ignorant to know, realize, or even accept if told.
The small Catholic Church of Estonia and the Church in Latvia were completely annihilated after the Soviet Union reintegrated these countries into its territory in 1945. All Church organizations were outlawed and all bishops jailed
if you want to know why its hated, and what they copied from it to fuel islam and use that against things, you only have to read and understand
Ad Sinarum gentem
“To the Chinese people”
On the Supranationality of the Church
in a way, a religion is a country on a metaphysical plane mapped over the other physical countries. this is why totalitarians hate it (one of many reasons). what would happen to obama if the catholic church said things in a certain way? which country would the believers be in, the physiucal united states, or the metaphysical catholic state
Dennis Says: The Catholic church is competing for market share just like any other organization.
yes, so is Miley, but compromising integrity is a short term solution that makes a long term problem.
Two other popes on Islam:
Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969:
“In our prayers, we always remember the peoples of Africa. The common belief in the Almighty professed by millions calls down upon this continent the graces of his Providence and love, most of all, peace and unity among all its sons. We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an.”
John Paul II, address to the Catholic community of Ankara, Turkey, November 29, 1979:
“Faith in God, professed by the spiritual descendants of Abraham—Christians, Muslims and Jews—when it is lived sincerely, when it penetrates life, is a certain foundation of the dignity, brotherhood and freedom of men and a principle of uprightness for moral conduct and life in society. And there is more: as a result of this faith in God the Creator and transcendent, one man finds himself at the summit of creation. He was created, the Bible teaches, ‘in the image and likeness of God’ (Gn 1:27); for the Qur’an, the sacred book of the Muslims, although man is made of dust, ‘God breathed into him his spirit and endowed him with hearing, sight and heart,’ that is, intelligence (Surah 32.8).”
More here.
I so wish that people, including popes as well as assorted progressive types, would bother to distinguish between voluntary charitable acts and compulsory charitable acts.
To my best comprehension, Jesus’ commands to feed the hungry and so on are to be fulfilled by voluntary, individual effort. On the contrary, there are those who consider the commands to be be intended to apply to coerced, collective effort, as though Jesus’ commands were worded as “agitate for your government to ensure that the hungry are fed”, etc. Many of us here recognize the latter as “get the ruling authorities to use force if necessary to take from Peter and give to Paul (a New Testament – inspired cliche, quite apt).”
To my best comprehension (again), the former, the voluntary understanding, is much closer to true Christianity. The latter, the compulsory understanding, is hardly Christian or even truly charitable at all, seems to me.
Ray and Art – You’re mixing anti-Jesuit clichés. You can’t be the fanatical, obey the Pope and take over the world type and also be the squishy, disobey the Pope and blend in with the world type.
Kind of weird. On the one hand in his prescriptions for society (exclusive of his climate expertise) he sounds like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. But then he goes to visit the most rigidly Communist country on the planet.
That’s a conflicted person.
@nolanimrod: This is true, but we don’t really know what he’s actually doing in Cuba and exactly what he’s saying to the Castros and anyone else he’s talking to. Just like we don’t know what his one-on-one discussion with President Obama is all about. I’m still willing to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt on these matters.
M J R: From what I’ve read, it’s unclear as to how many actually infallible statements have been made by Popes through the centuries prior to the declaration of the doctrine at Vatican I. The ones that are cited are usually related to declarations of heretical beliefs and in the most distant past, some declarations on the Christological doctrine (which was a topic that generated a lot of heresy, especially in the first several hundred years of the Church).
I do know that since Vatican I there have been precisely two ex cathedra statements (which also must be made in communion with magesterium at large, i.e., the Pope can’t suddenly announce something completely new). Those are the declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX and the declaration of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. These are both statements declaring the truth of things that had been believed by bishops, theologians and the faithful for centuries. Two of them in about 160 years. That’s it.
However… infallibility has another dimension such that when the community of bishops speak collectively, in union with the Pope, on the issue of faith and morals, this is also considered to be infallible as well.
Basically, Catholics believe that, as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit has been sent to guide the Church and prevent her from teaching errors, so that despite the faults of individual bishops and even Popes (we’ve had some bad ones in the past), the Church as a whole is prevented from erring in its Doctrine, having been revealed and safeguarded by God.
As Catholics, we believe that the Catholic Doctrine has not been kept consistent by merely men over 2000 years, but has in fact been kept consistent despite men. No human institution could accomplish so much and transform the world as the Church has without Divine Guidance.
Just look at the Vatican today… the politics and power-brokering and yes, even corruption rivals almost any secular government.
But as Catholics we place our trust in God to keep the whole thing afloat despite the best efforts of flawed, misguided or even evil men within (such as the communist infiltrators Artfldgr mentioned, and I’m convinced that really happened).
I have to trust God, because otherwise I would despair.
ConceptJunkie, 5:52 pm — “M J R: From what I’ve read, . . .”
Your post is very informative, for which I thank you, but it was not I who was discussing infallibility. You meant someone else!
ConceptJunkie–“Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I also take Jesus at his word, or I, too, would despair.
What is quoted below is an interesting statement. Since Martin Luther, there are a multitude of Christians who do not believe that the Pope is their shepherd and their teacher, much less their supreme apostolic authority. “the Roman Pontiff”
“speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
“he defines”
Although someone in the discussion suggested that the Pope is frequently misquoted; I find that a little unlikely. Unlikely that the Vatican would let it pass.
MJR makes a valid point. It would be very helpful if the Pope would differentiate between charitable acts and government confiscation for purposes of redistribution. It would also be very helpful if he would make it plain that he speaks specifically to Catholics. Like many, I do not consider him to be the guardian of my morals. Nor do I want him to try to dictate political philosophy in the United States–which despite all of the counter arguments, it certainly seems that he tries to do.
Oldflyer, intrinsic in the Mass (celebrated since instituted by Jesus the night before he died) are prayers for all the faithful and prayers for all the world. The church prays for “our separated brethren” and prays for unity. One invocation in the Eucharistic prayer states for “the good of all his holy church.” God knows who that means. I agree with you 100% that charitable giving is not to be coercive. I consider our taxes to be confiscatory in nature and the welfare policies to be in violation of 2 commandments: “Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal.” I assure you that many Catholics feel this way. I also haven’t found a broader social-justice understanding (political in nature) to solely exist in the Catholic faith. Many Protestants of all stripes and numerous unbelievers abide in that camp.
As a devout Catholic, I pretty much try to ignore the Pope. His actions upset me, as do many of his words. He spreads confusion within the Church herself. I’ve read bits and pieces of Laudate Si, and found it disturbing that the successor of St Peter was bothering to tell me to recycle. Souls are at stake, and he bothers with AGW?
I follow Father Z who used to write a column in a newspaper ‘what does the prayer really say?’ (based on the original Latin). I now read his blog to understand ‘what does the Pope really mean?’ But even he can’t explain it all away.
“Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence”
— Pope Francis
Good heavens. He needs to review Pope B16. I can only paraphrase, but one thing he said that stood out was that Islam needed to come to terms with the true interpretation of their holy book(s). The Books of Judaism and Christianity are inspired, not revealed. This means that God was not responsible for how everything was recorded, but rather the s/Spirit inspired men who in turn recorded it in their own words. Witness the 4 gospels – written for different groups of people – they do not match in every detail and there are acceptable reasons for it (from a scholarly perspective).
But the Koran, according to B16, was revealed, meaning that Muhhamad wrote it exactly as Allah wanted it to be written.
Christian and Judaic scholars and teachers of the faith can read God’s instructions of violence and interpret them to mean spiritual things, to be the interpretation held by an ancient people but meaning something different today. It’s not literal – we don’t see God advocating slaughtering people wholesale.
But B16 said that only the literal interpretation was appropriate to the Koran based on Islamic belief. The challenge is how to reconcile that with modern times.
Unfortunately, he gave no insight on how that could be done. I believe he was speaking to a group of Islamic scholars. The fact that the Pope seems unaware of this HUGE theological issue is shocking.
And yes, for those who know Muslims who interpret jihad as something spiritual against the evil within themselves, that is the eventual answer. However, the theology and beliefs of Islam directly contradict their beliefs.
I claim no additional knowledge about Islam beyond what I’ve written. Anything that I’ve written re: B16’s thoughts that are incorrect is attributable to my poor communication!
Oldflyer – he’s misquoted constantly (by both secular and Catholic media), and the Vatican does little to correct or explain anything.
““Economic imperialism” sure sounds like leftist language to me. Again, perhaps something got lost in translation.”
yeah; if the word was liberal… keep in mind that everywhere in world except the USA, the UK, and Germany… that means conservative to libertarian.
Anyway; John Paul the exception. The Catholic church is pretty anti free market. If Marx’s exaltation of the proletariat never made sense to you it has to do with the weavers revolts in Germany. They had a religious basis… he was trying to tap into that cultural energy and secularise that momentum.. momentum started by the Church’s teachings against money and private ownership.
The vast bulk of Catholic theology and doctrine was formulated before the industrial revolution, a time when the only real store of wealth was arable land. It is not at all surprising that it favors redistributionist policies.
This Pope is not a fluent English speaker therefore his remarks made in Italian or Spanish have to be translated into English & of course that step can be skewed by the person doing the translating & of course there is the *media* we all know they will word any quote attributed to the pope to fit their world view.
We can look forward to more of the same.
I went to a Jesuit high school and college. For the most part the Jesuits are not political. The Society of Jesus has done incalculable good in Omaha.
In my experience, most people don’t understand the Jesuits.
Read Fr. Jim Martin’s, “The Jesuit Guide to Nearly Everything” if you want to get a good sense of the Society.
Artfldgr Says at 4:22 pm
“Dennis Says: The Catholic church is competing for market share just like any other organization.
yes, so is Miley, but compromising integrity is a short term solution that makes a long term problem.”
Good point. It does seem to be working in the short haul. The popularity of this pope on the left is amazing. Those Catholics who do not agree with this pope keep telling themselves and us that he is not changing essential elements of Catholic theology. Hopefully, they are right.
JuliB:
About Pope Benedict and the possibility of reform in Islam — here’s a letter to the editor that appeared in the Washington Times in 2006 by a priest who was at that seminar on Islam you mentioned. The priest had earlier told Hugh Hewitt that Benedict said Islam could not be reformed, but the priest was concerned that some clarification was needed. Here’s the letter:
Cornhead: The Diocese of Lincoln was lucky to have one of the best bishops in the world, +Fabian Buskewitz from ’92 to ’12, and his successor +Conley has kept up the tradition of orthodoxy. I would bet that had a lot to do with your good experiences.
Oldflyer – It’s worse than that, not only is the Pope misquoted in the press and the Vatican in general does little or nothing to correct the situation, but the translators have even sometimes sought to undermine the Pontiff’s messages. The English versions of what the Popes write has frequently had translation “errors” that do not appear in other languages. When I said that there was corruption in the Vatican, I wasn’t joking. Some of the biggest enemies of the Church are high-ranking officials within it, and like JuliB, I think the Pope has more important things to worry about than global warming. It seems to be the Church is hurtling towards a full-blown schism this fall with the synod, and at that time we’ll find out even more who is on who’s side. I don’t know if Our Lady of Akita is an approved vision or not, but the prophecies revealed to Sister Agnes in 1973 couldn’t be more accurate:
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres, churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the devil will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The demon would be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer any pardon for them.”
Ann: The only reform of Islam that be would worth anything would be turning entirely to Christ.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-crusades/
My post there provides some ancient context for how the Roman Catholics got to where they are now.
There’s a lot of flex in the Papacy, depending on who was in it. Neo mentioned some of the differences between 3 near successive popes. Although we don’t have to worry about antipopes these days.
As for Islam, Islam is very good at wiping out heresies such as the Yazidi, as well as conquering and dominating areas that had religions they didn’t like. Namely the Buddhists in north India and West India, near Afghanistan. Namely the Zoroastrians who they wiped out. Yazidi, because they were in the same area as the Zoroastrians, also picked up some religious ideas from them. Another reason the Islamic hordes don’t like Yazidi and want to wipe them out.
The popularity of this pope on the left is amazing. Those Catholics who do not agree with this pope keep telling themselves and us that he is not changing essential elements of Catholic theology. Hopefully, they are right.
The Left is a kind of Christian heresy and they would support any antipope or pope that was sympathetic to said heresy. Even if the weren’t being ordered to by the Hussein Regime, Leftists would naturally gravitate towards a religious head that they feel is covering for them. On the Left, there’s a significant void in religious authority because they keep telling themselves they are secular and rational.
To give an example of what would need to happen for Islam to be reformed, every single Sunni and Shia priest would have to be executed or imprisoned. All the Caliphs would have to be killed or imprisoned, irregardless of religious faction.
And a Yazidi (a kind of Islamic heresy, old school) would have to be placed at the head of the council of imams and in the secular position of the kings.
ConceptJunkie:
Omaha and Lincoln are quite separate dioceses. Creighton has had good relations with the Archbishop of Omaha. Creighton is always happy to accept qualified students from throughout Nebraska, Catholic or non-Catholic. And always looking for good hoopsters from anywhere.
The Jesuits and diocesan priests run in different crowds. Other priests are also frequently jealous of the Jesuits. Joke: You can always tell a Jesuit but you can’t tell him anything.
The Pope is not a leftist. He’s not a Republican either. He’s a Jesuit. They talk; they question; they don’t expect every word to be the final word; they are committed to logic and reason and justice.
Francis does not ascribe to the liberal political agenda. He is not pro-immigration. He is pro-hospitality and humanity. He is not seeking votes. He is anti-abortion to the max. He of course does not believe in LGBTLMNOP, Trans, or anything like it. God made them man and woman is a matter of doctrine for the man for goodness sake.
He is being used by Obama and the Lefto-fascists; and unfortunately he has a responsibility to be more aware of this than he seems to be. He has very stupidly, and I do not use that word lightly, very stupidly made pronouncement on Climate Change. Popes can be very stupid ion certain things. There once was a Pope who almost made it a matter of doctrine that Galileo was wrong. Francis is like that when he writes about global warming which is total bullshit and no Pope should ever endorse total bullshit. It is not his best moment and even Popes suffer from human ignorance and vanity. No one is perfect.
On the whole though he is a good egg who champions good and decent conservative values (there being zero good and decent liberal values anyway).
Neo…I agree with your qualification of what constitutes “infallible ” teaching by the Pope, and my understanding is that it is extremely rare that teachings fall into this category.
So many Catholics are poorly cathecized, and don’t know, or bother to learn, the teachings of their own church, which is how so many of them come to believe that every word he says is “infallible”.
On faith and morals, this Pope is rock solid. In his political views, he tends to the left.
I’m conservative, but have many family members who are not, and I love them just the same. I can say the same for our new Pope.
“…and my understanding is that it is extremely rare that teachings fall into this category.”
Extremely rare being twice in 150 years. Yes you heard that right. Twice.
The hysteria over infallibility highlights the general ignorance of non-Catholics.
Compared to your average Catholic grade schooler, most people are ignorant, truly ignorant.
Please note: There is a big difference between IQ and social accomplishment and basic ignorance. So I repeat in full confidence that compared to the average Catholic Grade school kid, MOST people – present company included – are shockingly ignorant, embarrassingly ignorant about the simplest things.
Let me add one more thing about Francis and immigration. He has called on families and parishes to take refugees in. He has not endorsed Obama’s amnesty scam for Dem votes.
Here is one for all of you Einstein’s to ponder: Refugee kids brought up in Catholic Families become what when they grow up? Solid citizens trained in the RC tradition which is undeniably the best in the history of history, or ISIS thugs.
I know who knows the right answer: the aforementioned average Catholic grade schooler. The rest of the population?
it’s almost funny…
The doctrine of papal infallibility is an interesting one.
It is difficult to argue against the proposition that the Roman Catholic Church was the sole legitimate representation of the Christian faith in the Western portion of the Roman Empire until the Protestant Reformation. That means that for almost 1500 years, orthodox Christians in Europe worshiped their God and supported their pope without the doctrine of papal infallibility. During that time many of the popes were very righteous men while others were quite wicked. At times the church was obliged to reform itself. It is difficult to imagine how the church could have been as effective as a force for good and could have prospered for so long if it had been unable to recognize its own fallibility and to change as further information indicated change was necessary.
In view of the history of the church, the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was not formalized and enforced on the church until the First Vatican Council in about 1870, is a recent phenomena. For 1800 years Christians were free to call themselves Roman Catholics and to reverence the pope as their spiritual leader without the obligation to twist their minds around the doctrine that mere men, men who are usually not the smartest men or the most righteous men in the world, men whom history has shown are very human and very fallible suddenly become infallible when they speak ex cathedra.
The timing of this doctrine at the end of the European Enlightenment and the French Revolution suggests that the doctrine was an attempt to stem the tides of history which were sweeping away the old verities which held the church together. If that is true, the doctrine of papal infallibility, which flies in the face of reason, could be viewed as the church’s answer to the age of reason. The question in my mind is whether the doctrine of papal infallibility is really the best answer the modern Christian church can provide to the age of reason which by now is receding into the mists of history.
One of the strengths of the Catholic church from the beginning was its early embrace of reason and its use of Greek philosophy as an integral part of our Christian heritage. Perhaps as the rest of the World turns away from reason it is time for the church to reassert the sanctity of human reason.
SLR:
“… Anyway; John Paul the exception. The Catholic church is pretty anti free market. If Marx’s exaltation of the proletariat never made sense to you it has to do with the weavers revolts in Germany. They had a religious basis… he was trying to tap into that cultural energy and secularise that momentum.. momentum started by the Church’s teachings against money and private ownership.”
“Anti free market” “Church’s teachings against money and private ownership”
This may make sense to those who think that “Capitalism” started with England (and have a chickers sense of history). It didn’t. See the Italians. If anything capitalism was born in the (catholic) Middle Ages with the advent of the cities.
A) The CC is as a matter of doctrine (which means it cannot be changed) for private property, and B) for the Rule of Law. Put these two together and you will always have a form of “capitalism”.
“Germany” I always find it strange that Germany is considered to be a “Catholic” country. It was majority protestant. The strongest state was Prussia, a thoroughly protestant state (though with the Rhineland they acquired a Catholic minority after the Napoleonic Wars)
Bavaria (part of Germany) has always been a Catholic stronghold. with many ancient Catholic traditions. Switzerland is thought o f as Protestant but it too has these same thoroughly catholic regions.
Ann, I googled for quite sometime and couldn’t find what I was looking for. It appears that Fr. Fessio and I had the same concern about misrepresenting what B16 said!
Dennis – the popularity of this Pope is meaningless unless it brings leftists closer to God (and Church). As such, there has been no increase in Church attendance, and liberal Catholics who do attend Mass weekly still will not open their minds to the truth which must be believed.
The leftists will turn on him once they realize that the Pope is Catholic in its fullest meaning.
In Europe, it really is Scandinavia where a Catholic presence is rare, & non existent probably because these countries expelled monasticism. Nuns & Monks were never banished from Germany or Switzerland.
There is also a monastic presence in the Holy Land the Franciscans are in Nazareth & Bethleham & preserve the sites related to Chrit’s life.
Happily with *modern* enlightenment Scandinavian countries have re acquired their
catholic Monasteries ! They are in Sweden & Norway which had its own unique monastic order related to St Bridget, a congregation of nuns.
this was a featured story on EWTN, which was very interesting & compelling.
Opps @ 2;26 *Christ’s life* missed the 1st *S*
The united states has given more public and private money to more causes around the world than all other countries combined…
i am wondering when the pope will sell the art treasures, take the billions and then let 50,000 syrian immigrants come to the vatican, a country with a zero birth rate…
why not pope? why not put YOUR money where your mouth is rather than ask a country 18 Trillion in debt and coming to a civil war again over thigns to do what you wont do, and no other pontiff has done.
can you imagine how much money the sistine chapel would earn as a night club (as they did in ny city), or how much the pieta would get, david, the images by leonardo da vinci, and all that?
the church could easily raise a trillion dollars and have lots of art left over, and could even take that and have people make new art treasures like piss christ, for the future.
Art–if the world’s problems were financial, that would be wonderful; but they are moral problems, including the immorality of how money is being handled by nations and the populace at large. As a Catholic I am in disagreement with the Pope and our Bishops regarding immigration and sanctuary city nonsense, but just like we fight disagreement within the Republican party and try to affect things, the same approach is taken within the mystical body of Christ. As a person of faith, I believe prayer is our greatest weapon.
Mike M Says: September 23rd, 2015 at 9:24 pm /
The Pope is not a leftist. He’s not a Republican either. He’s a Jesuit. They talk; they question; they don’t expect every word to be the final word; they are committed to logic and reason and justice.
you do know the history of the jesuits, yes?
Sant’Ambrogio 1858?
and
In 1611, Galileo visited the Collegium Romanum in Rome, where the Jesuit astronomers by that time had repeated his observations. Christoph Grienberger, one of the Jesuit scholars on the faculty, sympathized with Galileo’s theories, but was asked to defend the Aristotelian viewpoint by Claudio Acquaviva, the Father General of the Jesuits.
The Jesuits have a famous maxim: “Give me a child for the first seven years, and you may do what you like with him afterwards.” (Lenin later went one better and reckoned if he had the child for eight years, they would be a Bolshevik forever).
the jesuits history is one of being a part of the states games, ergo the desire for protestants to change the church to avoid such games with the most important thing to give up was the confessional where the jesuits would trade secrets with politicians vying for power.
they are neck deep in the conspiracies of our ages that are false, some true, some irrelevent. from the jesuits, to the black pope, to the defunct but still drummed up illuminati, and so on.
its hard to imagine that so much stuff and none of it real, eh? so much of the real parts have to do with orders and people that existed and are wll known, the conspiracies real and imagine have to do with behind closed doors and what people believe or what books ahve disappeared.
like the stuff around Adam Weishaupt… quotes as saying “I am proud to be known to the world as the founder of the Illuminati.”
do they exist? do they exist only as a way to move peoples attention away from things that are real? who knows… i certainly dont, and there is nothing difinitive either way..
today i would look to the sierra club and the club of rome…
The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. Founded in 1968 at Accademia dei Lincei in Rome, Italy, the Club of Rome describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.”
the stuff with thar ranges from, they are like the CFR, trilaterial commission, bilderbergs, rothschilds, and so on… to, they are a faux satanist sect that pretends to be erudite but that covers their orgies and so on…
knowing what happens in these things was harder to know than what was happening in the sovietr union at the height of the cold war.
though the real secret in these things is not what they stand for, but for the membership lists that combine the leaders of the group of influence trying to influence the group of power thats invited. So you have a big party, attendees are honored to be invited, and they all get to hang out and have people who are keys to ideological ends like communism, chat the night away with wine, drink and exclusivity..
of course the idea that one should not talk to prisoners who will play games, the idea that one should not talk to communists never applies… (along with that is the idea of humans overcoming their biollogical urgings out ancestors decided were best served by not being in the situation as the only real safe thing – making for chapperones, and social rules)
i have no idea of this stuff as its even more steeped in crap, and stirred mightily until no one can really make sense of it… and its futile to try to untie that gordian knot as too many years, too many books, too many wackos rewriting, and so on.
something is there, but we will never know, and we will nevr know if its still there, or has moved on to other things as such things in history generally do…
Mike M. that is a lovely, arrogant statement that you made. We ignorant people can only judge by what is publicly spoken or written, as so much is consciously obscured, if not secret. So, to those whose excuse that the Pope is often misquoted, or that translations are faulty, I say “phooey”. The Pope arguably has the tallest bully pulpit, the loudest microphone, and the most extensive PR network in the world. If he cannot transmit his message unambiguously, whose fault is that?
If he is not dabbling in politics, and specifically related to policies in the U.S., I would hate to see what it looked like if he were.
While disagreeing with the tenets of Catholicism, I have generally admired the comfort that the Church provided to many of its faithful. On the other hand, over the years I have seen others hurt simply because they questioned the mandates of the hierarchy ever so mildly; even as some of the worst scandals were deliberately hidden.
the above is why i am not a tin hatter… to be valid and honest as to history and things that go on, one has to take a measured look and understand that where there is smoke there is often fire, but not always. and even if that is so, there is no actual way to know without access to thing no one gets access to and in some cases doesnt even exist any more.
here is a modern example
in Sangers autobiography is the description of how she attended the women of the KKK rally.. and how she had to comply with the actions of a secret society that would not even let her know directly before hand where they would meet (afterwards its not important). she attended, she spoke, and she got lots of offers to speak to other similar organizations and was quite impressed and liking it. however we have no actual idea of what she actually said to them. everything is inferred by the kind of people in the KKK, what they would think would be good and get them to invite her and the ideas that birth control review put forth in allowing ernst rohm the creator of the holocaust to comment.
a real historian has to pretty much stop at the step and say beyond this we can only infer so much, and only that can be supported.
the crack pots tend to cherry pick, make conclusions that are unsupported or go beyond what is supported, and so on. this is what makes conspiracy theory in the wacko sense. the grassy hill top, and the measuring of outcome by belief vs measured facts.
saying X could not shoot that fast and accurate belies the history of others who could and reinactments that repeated it, and even digital simulations using 3D technology to work out details… yes, they can be used to prove things either way, but what is the thing that is actually supported?
take for instance, kennedies brain… where is it? what was left of it? mush? so there is nothing to save? what about the skull piece? was it nefarious, was it a person saving it for their great grantchild to reveal and make a buck off of. whas it destroyed by accident as medical waste?
there is absolutely no way to know at all, and the idea that its a dirty plot can only be supported by believing the infallibility of the docs and nurses and that something could only happen and make them fallible if it was a plan. but given the fact that today we have methods to stop docs from cuttng out the wrong kidney, amputating the wrong limb, and leaving tools inside the body cavity, its unsupportable to decide what went wrong beyond its missing.
there is a difference between the conspiracy theory that is quite out there, and the conspiracy theory that is the norm, as most of what people do we dont announce and act in secret. so conspiracy is the norm, not the abnorm, and most of it is very innocuous, like a suprise birthday party.
there are other great conspiracies that are actually far out there and are confirmed… so you cant even use the measure of reasonable!!!!!!!
the only measure is what facts you can gather and enough of them being consistent and converging and being from more trusted sources than questionable.
a good example of this is Operation Northwoods
the idea was the military would create fake terrorist actions in florida, and that would justify military action in Cuba, and voila, goals met. it was that kennedy decided no, that it never actually came out… but it existed.
how about Operation Paperclip which orginally was Operation Overcast. this was the conspiracy to bring nazi scientists to the US post wwii and repatriat them and use them to do work… well, at the time it sounded nutters, but today, it sounds quite real as it happened.
one of my favorite wacko conspiracies that is supported is the CIA and other organizations testing drugs and things on civilians and in some case causing death. with my favorite being how to induce “voices” in someones head. ie. use a MAZER (microwave laser)… with such, you can hit a persons head, and cause tiny expansion in the bone. by modulating that tiny expansion, you can create waves which when they get to the ear, sounds like what you sent… the idea was that one could induce a leader or someone to be taken as crazy by giving them voices and torturing with them… it works, but was it used? no one has the slightest idea… at least no one in the public sphere and so, the information stops at that point.
how about the CIA and Art? there is a whole bunch of stuff as even the art world became a battle ground…
so the question then becomes… are these paintings important for their real influences to the realm of art? are they influential beacuse of the CIA games? what about the games of russia?
similar games were used to create rap music and get it distributed… but we dont talk about that and have some hoaky explanations of how it started leaving out that shakures mom and dad were founders of the panthers, and RAP was the monikor of H RAP brown. who became Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, a founder of the black panthers with shakures mom and dad, and whose book Die Ni**er die, is basically poetry of gansta rap. even blacks dont know this… and how did they get on the charts when distributors and stores would not sell their crapola?
well you can thank pip, estella, havisham, etc from the book great expectations. where the main character becomes a famous artist by first being paid to make art, and then having his artwork bought over and over again… with the buyer unknown… well, the rap records sold their albums to stores that never existed.. the stores bouoght huge numbers and those numbers ended up being submitted to the charts as sales, and the charts then became the adverts for them. and eventually with good numbers and the people following a variant of payola, became what it is today.
meanwhile Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin is in prison for killing a cop… Ricky Kinchen
he does have some interesting quotes though:
“violence is as American as cherry pie”
[which is funny given that the idea of american as apple pie and that started as a soviet union propaganda poster]
“If America don’t come around, we’re gonna burn it down”
The pope does not exist in a bubble of vatican dogma. He is a product of the politics of Argentina. I think the pope is clearly a Peronist which while socialist is not leftist. The environmentalism is opportunistic ( a trait Peronists are known for) and really only window dressing. This should be a concern especially to the Jewish community to have a powerful Pope with adult fascist ties as opposed to the last popes childhood ones. His close relationship with Kirchner, and the Justicialist Party speak loudly of this. In case you don’t recall Kirchner has spent a large effort covering up the assasination of Alberto Nisman and previous governments support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Wilbeforce All socialists are leftist…
sorry…
i guess you missed the long post that laid out the russian view of left, centrist, and right… which are all socialists…
im tired of trying to keep correcting what you and others adapt from the left then pretend its right
Right Opposition
The Right Opposition (Russian: ÐŸÑ€Ð°Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ð¿Ð¿Ð¾Ð·Ð¸Ñ†Ð¸Ñ, Pravaya oppozitsiya) was the name given to the tendency made up of Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Mikhail Tomsky and their supporters within the Soviet Union in the late 1920s. It is also the name given to “right-wing” critics within the Communist movement internationally, particularly those who coalesced in the International Communist Opposition, regardless of whether they identified with Bukharin and Rykov. Note that the designation “Right Opposition” refers to the position of this movement relative to the other Communist movements on the traditional spectrum. Relative to contemporary political centrism, the Right Opposition is still very firmly on the Left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Opposition
the left right centrist argument leaves out all other political systems and has nothing to do with france and its river or its courts… thats the sham… it has to do with communism and how its implemented…
but if you dont know communism well, or socialism well, you wont know this much and will walking around spouting stupidity like the other useful idiots, even if you oppose them!!!!
its really getting tiring that people are way too lazy to even read to save their country and such. i mean no one is asking you to revolt, or even take a weekend off to hold up a sign, but to freaking learn bout the world you actually live in and the subjects you claim to be interested in!!!!!!!!!
are you really interested in the facts and ow it works OR are you interested in the entertainment value of discussion and what the facts are relly dont matter as long as you get a say?
the latter is what most are doing, even if they dont think so… but do note, humans are good at working systems valid AND invalid… you can sit and tell me the rules about zombies, but your brain doesnt care if the zombie system is real or not…
the ONLY way to combat the propaganda of lying by ommission is to know what is being left out, what is wrong and not corrected as the mistake is serving what the truth will cause opposition in, and so on.
since idiots are safer when they are confused, the cure is to know more so you cant be confused. your brain does not detect missing information, so there is no substitute to knowing, and in this subject most of the knowing has been left out, gamed, and more..
what do these people ahve in common and do you even knwo who they are in terms of that commonality?
Dalton Trumbo
WEB Dubois
Stieg Larson
Jose Scaramango
Sean O’Casey
Imre Nagy
Jiang Quing
Alfred Wagenknecht.
Charles Ruthenberg
Jay Lovestone
Nicholas I. Hourwich
Alexander Bittelman
James P. Cannon
know any of them? given the subject matter of the way the US has become and the idea of it not keep going, these names and a whole lot more should be people you know and understand and can show what they did or didnt do.
the same is true of a lot of organizations.
do you even know what or where the Trade Union Educational League was and what it did?
basically most people dont know most of the pieces of the puzzle!!!!!!!! but that dont stop them by pretending whats missing never was there, and that it doesnt matter. you know, like fixing some machine and having a bunch of parts taht obviously were not needed… right?
its like a huge part of the history has been excised out of peoples minds by not letting them get into them in the first place.
it makes a lot of what thye say meaningless drivel that only they think is right, which is why the people in the movement think that such people are idiots, and that they are ripe to be used.
it would be like you, a person who understands cars and the combustion engine, listening to someone talk about cars and believe that there is a dragon in the box that makes it go… everything else on the surface they say correctly.. you sit in it, it has buckles, it takes you from place to place, has tires, etc.
but the critical part that would make their mental whole whole, is missing. what would you think of a person who described cars perfectly, except for the mechanism of mobility under the hood which is mostly fantasy? would you respect them as experts? would you think that what they are saying otherwise might be suspect?
this is what you appear to the elite who DO know these names, who do worship the history your missing, who do expect anyone who wants to be part of the conversation to know this (And if not, your out of it… they may listen to you, but only to be polite as you would listen to the man describe the kind of dragon that makes a car go and who drinks gasoline).
i have never been able to fully express this quality. neo never talks about it, and people just want to ignore it.. (as to catch up requires effort).
its lke a modern doctor listening to someone that says, bloodletting is good…
or a modern doctor listening to someone talk about aligning the humors, and not taking seriously germ theory.
this practice is great among all the people who are also ignorant of things. and so may even seem that its right, but to those in the know, its not a group you can actually have a cogent full discussion with as most of what they are talking about has no depth to it.
sigh.
Judge Napolitano on Fox just pointed out that Francis is a So American leftist, he says that Argentina had the 10 th largest economy before the leftists got in now it s down to 110th
and I will bet the *poor* are no better off, what so ever! So it goes ….
I liked the cover of a recent NATIONAL REVIEW with Pope Francis–looking somewhat like Dopey from Disney’s Seven Dwarves–with a book on basic economics, held upside down.
Alberto Nisman is one name
what about Boris Nemtsov
One may draw certain similarities with another recent murder — of a figure revered by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre — Argentine AMIA bombing investigator, Alberto Nisman. In both cases, gunned down before they were due to present a highly controversial report Police security, in both, apparently disappeared before the killing. Both have refocused public opinion.
There is one slight difference: Nemtsov got four bullets in the back. So far, noone has claimed it was suicide
and if you know the detailed history of socialism, you would know that they are not the only ones who were giving out information that ended up dead, and whose death favored the socialists..
you can go back to the earliest days of the establishment of socialism as a state outcome to find that it goes hand in hand with assasination, which eventually ended up putting down the Tsars family with bullets to the head.
from 1904
On 15 July 1904, in accordance with the decision of the Fighting Organisation of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the Minister of Internal Affairs Vyacheslav Konstantinovich von Plehve was killed.
if neo allowed it i could literally list out over 1000 assasinations committed by russian socialists or anarchists pre socialism… heck.. i can give you over 300 journalists in the past 15 years…
Molly NH:
See today’s post, just up.
Nothing like religion mixed with politics, is there?
Whew.
Utterly brilliant essay on one reading. It is the type of essay which deserves at least one more reading to fully grasp.
And so I am going to re-read it now with one observation before I do.
What Neo does is not samizdat, but it is.
Fernandez and Greenfield do the same thing, though less intensively, and it is the daily (6/7ths) extraordinary intellectual dedication which makes her a treasure.
There is no lazy thinking or cant. In a just world the recognition would be proportionately astronomical.
But we live in a bizarre leftist world where propaganda is as deep as it gets.
Artfligr: On your Jesuit screed: Unadulterated ignorance. Try to actually learn something (I am suggesting reading books) before you waste all that space and all those words….
Oldflyer: Yada yada crapola. The topic was Infallibility. The ignorance remains seemingly unbounded.
It’s not a difficult issue at all. Therefore the ignorance is even more shocking. Not shocking really. Par for the course. When the mind is dogmatically opposed to learning something since to actually do so would mean to change, then the mind will refuse.
So the question of infallibility is something that could be learned and covered in approximately ten minutes. It is slightly more complex than the 6 times table, but not much more.
And yet it seems to be a great mystery…with dark forces just around the corner about what the Popes!!!! might presume to say!!!!!! Look out!!!!!!!!
It’s actually a laugh.
And you all are the conservatives, the good guys. Imagine how the bad guys, the lefties, confuse it.
Regarding Cuba and PF’s visit. I listened to the speeches in Spanish and PF’s homilies were good but typical, nothing earth shattering. What caught my attention were the greetings from
Card Ortega y Alamino of Havana and Bishop Arangurén Echeverréa from Holguén. They were both blunt and confrontational, especially considering the brutality of the Castros. The sense I got was that PF said, in effect, these are my guys. Cardinal Ortega y Alamino has already been in a Castro prison. I have complete confidence that PF would call the Castros to account just as he did the military junta of Argentina.
Listening to the comments from Pope Francis regarding Islam, I heard direct echoes of St Francis of Assisi with the Sultan Al-Kamil in Egypt in 1213. Francis went to convert the Sultan. Interesting read. I’m not sure if Francis of Assis is correct or not, but what he said sure is echoed by PF.
See The Saint and the Sultan by Paul Moses.
It is going to be difficult for the Catholic Church to convert people given that politics and wealth redistribution from communism have become many people’s religion.
But perhaps having an additional fighter in the ring would cause enough disturbance that Islamic Jihad and the Left doesn’t take over the entire world, at least.