Who Does Pope Francis Love More, America or Obama?

by
Not abusing Capitalism but still hard-working

Not abusing Capitalism but still hard-working

Vatican’s La Stampa has an interview with Obama’s ambassador to the Vatican, former Catholic Relief Services Director, Kenneth Hackett about Francis’ upcoming visit to the United States and Cuba.  Apparently the whole thing was hatched not so much at the invitation of the House’s Boehner, but Obama.

The President invited him to the United States?

Yes, the President invited him and more importantly, in the context of that invitation, the dynamic, the personal interaction, was more than warm; they hit it off on a number of issues including, I think, migration, poverty, exclusion, and people falling through the cracks. Those are the kind of things that I believe they were discussing behind closed doors. As soon as we were let in immediately afterwards you could feel the atmosphere in the room was very positive. So somehow Pope Francis had a very positive view of President Obama and what he is trying to do, and they clicked. And I think that led to his decision to come.  

Then the following September I carried the invitation from Speaker Boehner to speak to Congress and I probably said at the time that this is a long shot, but Francis picked it up and there it goes.

The UN was not on the cards in the very beginning because we kept hearing it’s going to be a pastoral visit, and yes he’ll go to the White House, and then he’ll go to Congress.  But all of a sudden (UN Secretary General) Ban Ki-moon came in and locked down the UN because a lot of people were saying it is the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s visit to the UN, and Francis could speak about climate and about the sustainable development goals, and so they were creating an environment for him to speak at the UN.

“The dynamic, the personal interaction, was more than warm?”  What does that mean? If it was more than warm was it hot?  Did the pope have the least bit of Christian council or concern for the world in the face of a man like Obama?  Is President Obama Pope Francis’ favorite person in the world?  Was he in love?  Is Obama a spiritual guide to Pope Francis?

What was the President’s reaction afterwards?

As you know well, the private conversation went on for a very long time.  And coming out of the Pope’s meeting Obama was refreshed. He was happy!

Obama was refreshed after a very long conversation via interpreter?  Was there a shower in there?  Why was he so happy?  Did his meeting with Francis succeed beyond his wildest dreams?

What is your own personal memory of that meeting?

It was two friends talking about things, even though they had never met before.  As I was seeing it, this was warm and positive, and everything I have heard from the White House since he got back says the President was overjoyed with the visit.

Why is the entire monstrous liberal machine giddy about Francis?  Is he handing over the patrimony of the Church so fast they can’t contain their demonic glee?

The lengthy interview is full of spin, but the biggest helping of it is applied to Francis and Communism, I mean, ‘anti-Capitalism.’

Some of his statements in the encyclical “on our common home” and in his speech to the Popular Movements, during his visit to Bolivia, were strong critiques of the way the economy is run. Many in the US read them as a strong critique of capitalism.  What do you say to these critics?

I didn’t read them as a strong critique to all forms of capitalism. I think he’s basically saying what his predecessors said, but he is doing it with a Latin flare. He talks about the excesses of capitalism, and as I pick up the paper and I see who has been jailed in this place and that place for some banking scandal, I see there are excesses.  I cannot believe that he is saying that the capitalist system which rewards hard work, good decisions, is totally wrong. He’s certainly not saying that the socialist system is the answer! He just saying don’t abuse things, don’t abuse your capitalism.

 “A Latin flare, eh?”  He has that. 

In Francis’ mind having more than someone else is an abuse of freedom.  As he travels to Bolivia and around the world Francis is saying that situation must be fixed.  He wants a new ‘system’ where things are no longer ‘unequal.’  If the free system where you buy goods and services and spend your own money to do so doesn’t work, then we need a ‘system’ where that’s restrained, checked.  Francis wants to impose some alternative to our God-given right to our lives and property, and then call it Catholic morality.  That’s socialism, communism, Liberation Theology.  Obama loves it and Ambassador Hackett is lying.

He’s certainly has raised this concern in various quarters about the stratification of our society, that so few at the very top have accumulated so much wealth and have left out the entire next three or four levels, and not just the poorest but even those who are struggling to get by on 30,000 dollars with three kids – that’s below the poverty line in some cities.  He recognizes the issues, and I think those who are criticizing him as anti-capitalist are going too far. I may be wrong but that’s the way I read it.

I hope I’m not going too far but, do you know where capitalism isn’t ‘totally wrong’ either?  Cuba.  The state-controlled Cuban labor scheme leaves employees with 4% of every dollar they generate, but that 4% is still some hard-working capitalism.  I may be wrong but that’s the way I read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Sins In FrancisChurch Just Keep Accumulating

by
A sin

Ruled as Insufficiently Compelling

Pope Francis has made his universally broad new environmental Catholic doctrine mandatory.  Obey or you’re not a true Christian!  You have no choice in the matter because I’m the Pope of course.

How do we specifically comply with this new teaching from God?  There are millions of media outlets, government funded institutions, and ‘Catholic’ establishments who will provide the necessary action items.

For two years I taught social studies at an inner-city high school; for six years I ran a Catholic Worker shelter for homeless families. Then, almost 20 years ago, I became a full-time animal advocate, confident that such labor is integral to Catholicism.

As one might expect, I received plaudits from fellow Catholics for my anti-poverty and educational work but less support for my animal protection work. Most Catholics I’ve encountered seem to think of such do-gooding as fundamentally removed from religious imperatives.

Yet Pope Francis begs to differ.

“Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork,” Francis wrote in his latest encyclical, “is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.”

Get out your FrancisChurch notebook.  Full-time paid animal advocacy fits the bill as being ‘essential to a life of virtue!’

On the day Francis released the encyclical, he tweeted, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. #LaudatoSi.”

Leaving aside the modern method of transmission, this statement is not actually remarkable. It’s a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But what does it mean that we should not cause animals to suffer or die needlessly? Surely this admonition demands more of us than that we not personally injure and kill animals. I’m convinced that we are also obligated as Catholics to avoid paying others to kill or harm animals, absent some exceedingly compelling justification.

Is a chicken sandwich exceedingly compelling?  I’m not sure but I definitely feel guilty.  I was hungry but I wasn’t exceedingly compelled I must admit.  I wish I could ask Pope Francis but he probably just eats beans.

Put another way, “purchasing is always a moral — and not simply economic — act.” That line also comes from the encyclical, in a paragraph in which Francis applauds consumer boycotts focused on pushing corporations to engage in more ethical practices.

Thinking about consumer choices in the context of animal rights, consider that by far the most needless suffering comes at the hands of the meat industry, which kills about 9 billion land animals annually. These creatures are treated in ways that would warrant cruelty-to-animals charges were dogs or cats similarly abused.

Do you know why purchasing is always a moral choice in FrancisGospel?  It’s because he’s an anti-capitalist and his hackles rise when anyone is able to do something with money.  Making money a moral choice gives him jurisdiction over every tiny decision people make.  It robs those foolish enough to believe him of their God-given freedom.

Communists think you should get what they give you when they want you to have it and they think they should own everything you’ve got.  Pope Francis Communists (Liberation Theologists) are the same, but they pretend it’s Christian morality and not just pride, envy, and thievery.

Why does FrancisChurch seem to inevitably lead to putting left wing environmentalist pressure on every tangible industry in the world?  Miners can’t mine; Farmers can’t farm.  Ranchers can’t slaughter cattle.  We can’t eat the meat they sell us.  Nobody can have any money or property that someone else doesn’t, regardless of their choices or rights.  And if you have enough to do something really productive, then you’re really in trouble.

You’re money belongs to you, not to Pope Francis and his false preaching on moral choices.  Buying poison or a mafia hit is a bad use of money, not a steak, or a gun, or an acre of land. We used to understand this was foolishness and tyranny.  Why must we now pretend it’s our Faith?

 

 

 

 

Why Do Banana Republic Bishops Hate Global Warming Critics?

by
Praying you'll become happy with less.

Praying you’ll become happy with less.

Pedro Biretto Jimeno, Archbishop of Huancayo, Peru is another Latin American Communist in the FrancisChurch style.  If the global warming agenda isn’t about crushing the free market with  unreasonable and suffocating worldwide taxes and regulations, then why do these faux-Catholic clerical agents keep acting like it’s all about money?

The Archbishop of Huancayo, Peru has said that Pope Francis must prepare himself for criticism following the publication of his encyclical on the environment.

Archbishop Pedro Barreto Jimeno of Huancayo, Peru, told Catholic News Service: “(The encyclical) will have many critics, because they want to continue setting rules of the game in which money takes first place. We have to be prepared for those kinds of attacks.”

That’s what Marxists see as capitalism.  It’s a rigged system in which someone besides themselves is making the rules.  It’s obvious to them that since some are rich and some are poor, that the system is unfair.  Of course, these communists no nothing about serving others since most of them spend their lives shuttling from speaking engagements to catered meetings in hotels.  They are often academics or bureaucrats who’ve spent their lives pleasing superiors rather than customers.  There seem to be quite a few of them in the South American hierarchy.

The archbishop said that there would controversy once people had read the Pope’s new encyclical because resisting the “throwaway culture” by being satisfied with less means “putting money at the service of people, instead of people serving money.”

What is money, Archbishop?  Isn’t just a way for two people to help each other?  Why do you want other people’s money so much that you must condemn it?  There’s nowhere on earth that people are serving money.  It’s a tool.  If you don’t like working at McDonald’s go to school?  Live with your folks, save your money and open your own burger shack.  If you think Bill Gates is using you, don’t buy Windows.

Pope Francis’ upcoming encyclical on ecology and climate is expected to send a strong moral message – one message that could make some readers uncomfortable, some observers say.

“The encyclical will address the issue of inequality in the distribution of resources and topics such as the wasting of food and the irresponsible exploitation of nature and the consequences for people’s life and health,” Archbishop Pedro Barreto Jimeno said.

“Pope Francis has repeatedly stated that the environment is not only an economic or political issue, but is an anthropological and ethical matter,” he said. “How can you have wealth if it comes at the expense of the suffering and death of other people and the deterioration of the environment?”

Lies on top of lies on top of lies.  How is this man an archbishop?

The encyclical is not expected to be a theological treatise or a technical document about environmental issues, but a pastoral call to change the way people use the planet’s resources so they are sufficient not only for current needs, but for future generations, observers said.

It’s not technical and it’s not theological.  That’s a relief.  We don’t have to pay attention to any faux-science or faux-theology we might find in it.  It’s only harmlessly pastoral, just like Vatican II.  So we don’t need to believe anything in it, but we damn sure better follow it like sheep!

The document “will emphasise that the option for stewardship of the environment goes hand in hand with the option for the poor,” said Carmelite Father Eduardo Agosta Scarel, a climate scientist who teaches at the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina and the National University of La Plata in Buenos Aires.

If it’s an option, why do I have no choice in the matter?

“What the Pope brings to this debate is the moral dimension,” said Anthony Annett, climate change and sustainable development adviser to the Earth Institute at Columbia University and to the nonprofit Religions for Peace. “His unique way of looking at the problem, which is deeply rooted in Catholic social teaching, resonates with people all across the world.”

Are popes supposed to bring moral dimensions to debates, or are they supposed to defend moral absolutes?  If these things are debatable, then why are they treated as undeniable truths despite the fact they’re based upon one sided well-funded junk science?

“Whether you think climate change is a problem or not, you cannot deny that running out of fish, oil, water and other resources is a really big problem. The solution is a radical change in our concept of what makes a person happy. We need to move away from the idea that the more things we have, the happier we’ll be,” Kane said.

Check your things and redefine your happiness because we’re getting ready to confiscate both in the name of Christ.