Pope Francis meets with representatives of DIALOP, Transversal Dialogue Project, an association of European leftist politicians and academics that seeks to bridge Catholic social teaching and Marxist theory, on Jan. 10, 2024, at the Vatican. (Credit: Vatican Media)
Rome Newsroom, Jan 12, 2024 / 10:30 am (CNA).
Pope Francis this week called for cooperation between Christians and Marxists as a way to achieve greater “dialogue” and help in the search for the “common good.”
“I thank you for your commitment to dialogue,” the pope said in a private meeting on Jan. 10 with 15 representatives of DIALOP (Transversal Dialogue Project), an association of European leftist politicians and academics that seeks to bridge Catholic social teaching and Marxist theory.
“There is always a great need for dialogue, so do not be afraid,” the pope said during the event at the Paul VI Audience Hall.
Highlighting the nexus between social, economic, and ecological issues, the pope said that “politics that is truly at the service of humanity cannot let itself be dictated to by finance and market mechanisms.”
The pope buttressed his call for a more inclusive participation in economic and political decision-making by suggesting that “instead of rigid approaches that divide, let us cultivate, with open hearts, discussion and listening.”
“And not exclude anyone at the political, social, or religious level, so that the contribution of each can, in its concrete distinctiveness, receive a positive reception in the processes of change to which our future is linked,” the Holy Father added.
“Don’t back off, don’t give up, and don’t stop dreaming of a better world. For it is in imagination, the ability to dream, that intelligence, intuition, experience, and historical memory come together to make us be creative, take chances, and run risks.”
Pope Francis meets with representatives of DIALOP, Transversal Dialogue Project, an association of European leftist politicians and academics that seeks to bridge Catholic social teaching and Marxist theory, on Jan. 10, 2024, at the Vatican. Credit: Vatican Media
The pope argued that “solidarity is not only a moral virtue but also a requirement of justice, which calls for correcting the distortions and purifying the intentions of unjust systems, not least through radical changes of perspective in the sharing of challenges and resources among individuals and among peoples.”
The pope closed his speech with a reflection on the importance of the rule of law, saying: “It is only in honesty and integrity that healthy relationships can be established and that we can cooperate confidently and effectively in building a better future.”
Pope Francis has made critique of the market economy one of the defining themes of his pontificate. In his 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, the pope wrote: “We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market.”
🎥 HIGHLIGHTS | Pope Francis met at the Vatican with members of the DIALOP transversal dialogue project, which brings together socialists/Marxists and Christians in order to propose a common social ethic for Europe. pic.twitter.com/V27TaxfgUf
“Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: It requires decisions, programs, mechanisms, and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment, and an integral promotion of the poor, which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality.”
Vatican News noted that the Jan. 10 audience was “not a short greeting but an interview that lasted with spontaneous questions and answers for about 40 minutes.”
DIALOP was founded in 2014 after a meeting between Pope Francis, the Vienese leftist politician Walter Baier, former Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras, and Franz Kronreif of the Focolare Movement, a spiritual and social renewal founded in 1943 — and approved by the Church in 1962 — to promote universal brotherhood and to foster dialogue between different religious groups.
Both Baier and Kronreif were present at the Jan. 10 meeting. In an interview with Vatican News following the audience, Baier noted that during the speech the pope highlighted “the need for solidarity” especially “toward socially disadvantaged people.”
“He called for a dialogue that goes beyond historical patterns, a dialogue that deals primarily with the excluded and vulnerable and that respects the principles of the rule of law.”
Kronreif said to Vatican News that following the pope’s call from the meeting, the association is “preparing a two-year project that should start in the autumn on peace, on how to build peace … a project to involve especially the young generations in how to make peace grow from below, so that everyone feels called upon to create peace around themselves, to help the victims of war to realize what the roots of war may be and what are the tools to prevent it.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Denver Newsroom, Feb 27, 2021 / 03:01 pm (CNA).- An effort to restore strong religious freedom protections in Iowa has the backing of the state Catholic conference and others who say there should be a high threshold for any state interference with the free exercise of religion.
While the legislation does not mention LGBT issues, LGBT advocates have tried to portray it as harmful and discriminatory.
“We support the bill and have supported similar proposals for several years,” Tom Chapman, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference, told CNA Feb. 26. “Our view is that the bill provides a standard of review for the court when there’s a conflict between the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and a law.”
“This is not a license for anyone to discriminate. It doesn’t grant anyone any new rights,” Chapman said. “It simply gives people and institutions an argument in court.”
Iowa’s proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, numbered S.F. 436, would allow the government substantially to burden religious exercise only if it can prove that there is a compelling state interest and that this burden is “the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest.”
“What it does is it says that government must be held to the highest standards before it can infringe on a person’s free exercise of religion,” Republican Sen. Dennis Guth, the bill sponsor, told KCCI News.
“I want all people in the state of Iowa to be able to live and work according to their free conscience without having ideas being censored,” he said. “During this time of kind of the cancel culture, I think the problem is not so much that people of faith are trying to push their religion on someone else, but that the secular world is trying to force their thoughts on people of faith.”
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by Congress and enacted into law in 1993, receiving unanimous bipartisan support in the House and passing the Senate by a vote of 97-3. President Bill Clinton signed the legislation.
The act was supported by leaders in both parties as a response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision Employment Division v. Smith, in which the court upheld the government in a case involving two Native Americans fired after testing positive for peyote, which they argued they had ingested as part of a religious ritual.
The act has played a role in the coronavirus epidemic, with federal courts taking a more sceptical view of public health rules that treat religious gatherings and venues more strictly that similar non-religious activities. The Little Sisters of the Poor have also cited the act in their objections to a federal mandate requiring them to provide employee health coverage of sterilization and contraception, including drugs that can cause abortion, in violation of their religious beliefs.
While the federal legislation attempted to require states to have stronger religious freedom protections, the Supreme Court blocked that section of the law. States which desire to return to a high threshold for government burden on religion must pass their own religious freedom legislation.
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have passed in about 20 states.
If the Iowa bill becomes law, when a person’s free exercise of religion is burdened by state action, he or she may cite the act as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
“Under current law, a court is not required to apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing a law that burdens a person’s exercise of religion when such law is generally applicable,” said the bill’s explanation section.
The bill would require courts to apply the “compelling interest” test of Supreme Court precedents like the 1963 ruling Sherbert v. Verner and the 1972 ruling Wisconsin v. Yoder.
While religious freedom had strong support in the U.S. in the late twentieth century, the principle has become contentious with the rise of LGBT advocacy and some abortion rights advocacy.
Stronger anti-discrimination laws and policies protecting sexual orientation or gender identity have been invoked to shut down Catholic adoption agencies that only place children with a mother and a father or to compel people working in the wedding industry, like florists, photographers, and bakers, to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies.
Some Catholic hospitals have come under fire from critics for declining to perform abortions or gender reassignment surgeries. Critics say such refusals constitute discrimination against women or the self-identified transgendered.
The Iowa bill does not mention LGBT concerns or abortion.
However, Damian Thompson of the group Iowa Safe Schools, which claims to represent 10,000 LGBTQ youth across the state, characterized the bill as “anti-LGBTQ.”
“It’s very distressing for many of our students,” he told KCCI News, claiming that mental health problems, risk of suicide, and self-harm have been accelerating “because we’re seeing problematic pieces of legislation like these ran all the time.”
Mark Kende, a constitutional law professor at Drake Law School, contended that the law “allows for discrimination against an already vulnerable group.” He said people would assert religious freedom “while hurting people who might want something or a service from those individuals.”
Kende told KCCI that some states that passed religious freedom bills faced corporate boycotts that cost states millions of dollars in revenue.
“Iowa can’t afford in the middle of the COVID crisis and the economic downturn to be losing all that business,” he said.
Notably, in 2015 then-governor of Indiana Mike Pence faced threats of boycotts from CEOs, celebrities, major sports events, and leaders of some city and state governments over a state religious freedom restoration act that mirrored the federal legislation.
The proposed federal Equality Act has come under criticism for concerns that it would strip religious freedom protections from people and institutions accused of discrimination.
“Instead of respecting differences in beliefs about marriage and sexuality, the Equality Act would discriminate against people of faith,” the Iowa Catholic Conference said in Feb. 21 comments about the federal bill.
As CNA has previously reported, various advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Center for American Progress and even some academic centers like Columbia Law School’s Law, Rights and Religion Project are part of a multi-million dollar social and political change patronage network aiming to limit religious freedom protections where thy conflict with LGBT and abortion rights concerns. Major funders of this network include the Ford Foundation, the Proteus Fund, and the Arcus Foundation.
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
Bishop Robert Francis Prevost was named prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Bishops on Jan. 30, 2023. / Credit: Frayjhonattan, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Vatican City, May 5, 2023 / 07:50 am (CNA).
A bishop should nurture closeness to… […]
48 Comments
It’s time for a chat across ideological boundaries. And a chat that reaffirms LAW and yet is not burdened by HISTORY? Which law, and what history?
“…one can and must say simply that Marxism failed as an all-embracing interpretation of reality and a directive for action in history [!]. Its promise of freedom, equality and welfare for all was not verified by the empirical facts; it was shown to be false on the basis of political and economic facts. Although these assessments are correct, one would remain on a superficial level if one were to be content with them. Rather, we must take one step farther [today, synodally “walking together”?] and ask: But what is specifically false in this interpretation of the world and in the praxis [Stalinism, etc.] deduced from it? An exact observation of the events leads directly to the heart of the matter: the power of the spirit, the power of convictions, of suffering and hopes, has thrown down the existing structures. This means that the materialism which wanted to reduce the spirit to a mere consequence of material structures [the “law” of history!], to the mere superstructure of the economic system [!], has been brought down. But here we are no longer speaking only of the problem of Marxism and its world of states [now the paradisiacal China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.]—we are speaking about ourselves. For materialism is a problem that affects us all; its breakdown compels all of us to an examination of conscience” (Ratzinger, “Turning Point for History,” Ignatius, 1994).
The FAMILY, too, is only a consequence of economic forces (F. Engels, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, originally Zurich 1884). What, then, of Natural Law?
So now, a dialogue with “concrete” Marxists–in what way distinguishable from Marxism (?)–and this theological riddle in the hands of Prefect Fernandez who seems skilled in only the rhetorical harmonization of contemporary “polarities,” since nothing deeper or more concrete (!) seems to be on the synodal roundtable.
Skilled and skilleted—”from the frying pan [the, yes, imperfect market economy] into the [perfect]fire”?
About any “chat across ideological boundaries,” the presumed “harmonization of polarities” (both my wording), and the fallacy (!) of any third way between Capitalism and Socialism, the Catholic Social Teaching is not a middling third way, but rather the “negation of ideology”.
So, in regard to the noted rule of LAW (Pope Francis), and from a predecessor who lived through the (erased?) HISTORY of Communism and who wrote on the threshold of the 21st Century, the following clarification from St. John Paul II—when asked whether capitalism was the path for a post-Soviet eastern Europe and beyond:
“The answer is obviously complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector [papal caricature: “invisible hand”, “finance and market mechanisms”?], then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a STRONG JURIDICAL FRAMEWORK which places it at the service of HUMAN FREEDOM IN ITS TOTALITY, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the CORE OF WHICH IS ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS, then the reply is certainly negative” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, CA n. 44, caps added).
Without diminishing the value of grounded dialogue (more than a flat-table synodal “process”?), what more is the perennial and incarnational Catholic Church bringing to its engagement with Marxists/Marxism, in addition to only a call for “poetry” and “creativity” (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/january/documents/20240110-dialop.html). More than a polarity, the Catholic Social Teaching “belongs to the field . . . of theology and particularly moral theology” (CA n. 55; Rerum Novarum n. 153).
Peter. This may well be, reading with moderately jaundiced eyes an adroit overture by His Holiness to expand the cooperative success of his Vatican China policy to include the universal Church.
Humor aside, admittedly, this pontificate has attracted ranking churchmen who have an affinity with Marxist socialist doctrine. We’re aware of high praise for the China regime being touted as a near perfect assimile of Christianity. Indeed there is that resemblance of communal equanimity inclusive of goods. His Holiness has expressed as much in his social doctrine, we recall his universal salary proposal, also his consistent appeal for the poor which is the perceived good of Marxism, a tenet of the Gospels. The difference is this pontificate minimizes the moral dimension as revealed by Christ in favor of a Marxist type of communal justice.
And it is hard to avoid wondering if his minimalizing of personal moral dimensions and heroic responses of personal virtue to heal fragile human woundedness or combat darkest humanity, inspired in ways only accessible through religion, from divinely endowed graces and sacraments, might be due to a dearth of authentic faith in whatever vestigial religious sense does inspire or fails to inspire his mind and soul. Marxists have never hidden their absolutist faith, and conceits, in elitist ordered social engineering, murderously intolerant of counterrevolutionaries. A faith in an eventual restructuring of the Church and the world to eradicate all evil often seems to govern Francis’ publicly expressed values, no matter how he might use prepared, perfunctory Christian rhetoric in Angelus addresses that would imply the imperfectability of the human condition, short of Our Lord’s return, were he to consider the meaning of the actual words.
Any political or social system that cancels or curtails the freedom of human persons to choose between right & wrong ethics is a system that opposes what God is doing in this Universe & World.
God, the source of all, is the freely choosing Spirit who always autonomously chooses merciful self-giving love, right-ethical holiness, & perfectly just goodness.
Humans are the only living beings that we know of that share the capacity to choose godly right ethics, or devilishly wrong ethics. We are all EChOs – ethically choosing organisms. It is a maximally serious matter to be a person “in God’s image & likeness” – the opportunities are truly spectacular, the dangers really dreadful.
When militia, politicians, and other social managers (including AI) coerce or dictate in such a way as to diminish or remove the possibility for individual ethical choice, they quench the image of God in us.
Regimented societies have a certain appeal to demi-god rulers and even, tragically, to many who simply want to live a simple life according to the ‘rules of the system’.
This is de-humanizing because it suppresses the freely ethically choosing image of God in us, our source of personhood and our resonance with Heaven.
May God preserve us from Marx, Putin, Xi Jin Ping, ‘Pope’ Francis, and all their like.
Ever in the freedom won for us by Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
“Pope Francis this week called for cooperation between Christians and Marxists as a way to achieve greater “dialogue” and help in the search for the “common good.”
Yes, because 20th Century history has given us ample evidence that Marxists have people’s best interests in mind 🙄. Francis, please just stop talking.
All sorts of useful idiots were conducting “dialogues” with the Marxists: PAX in Poland, Pacem in Terris in Czechoslovakia, etc. Under Paul VI, Catholic-Marxist dialogue went on steroids under the leadership of Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, a lunacy that did not stop until somebody who had real experience of Marxists — Karol Wojtyla — ended it. By then, the Hungarian hierarchy was largely a branch wing of the Hungarian Communist Party, the Czechoslovak sees were vacant, Uniate Catholics in Russia abandoned, etc. Now, the same mindset pursues this policy vis-a-vis Beijing, even though it is clear it is yielding nothing. One wishes Francis would stop his incessant “dialogues” and get down to doctrine (as it exists, not as he might wish it to be).
I was so tempted to quip, when was the last time any Jesuit did an honest day’s work? Then my guardian angel kicked me and reminded me of the good Jesuits I met when I did some amount (not enough) of missionary work in the third world.
It’s great to see the pope getting past “rigid ideologies,” isn’t it? Ideologies that don’t starve millions, put opposing voices in gulags, build iron curtains to keep people from fleeing oppression, suppress religion, on and on. Marxism has such a stellar resume of greater dialogue and search for the greater good.
I am increasingly of the opinion that Pope Francis is not stupid at all. He and those he elevated to be cardinals know exactly what they are doing. They are working according to the plan worked out by the modernists at Vatican II to make the Church more compatible with the spirit of the modern age. A spirit directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus and they will fail. As Pope Benedict predicted we will become a much smaller Church, as many will decide they don’t need the Church at all. They will not see them selves as sinners in need of salvation.
You get the BINGO prize! The Pope and his cardinals know EXACTLY what they are doing. Just as former president Obama, upon becoming a US President, advised that “America is about to undergo a “fundamental” change”, so to is Francis implementing fundamental changes with the other men who seem to be acting as politicians in the Vatican. Yes, they know exactly what they are doing, and perhaps, Archbishop Vigano has it right that the Swiss Guards at the Vatican should arrest the Pope and his seditious and heretical cohorts and remove them from the Lord’s Holy of Holies here on earth.
The Christian and Marxist conceptions of the common good are diametrically opposed. We should dismiss the Holy Father’s call for cooperation with groups and governments who have murdered well over 100 million in the last century and are determined to finish the job. The ongoing betrayal of Catholics and others who continue to suffer vicious persecution under Communist regimes like those in China and Nicaragua is one of the many and most serious scandals that will be this papacy’s legacy.
I’m already imagining what the “anti-everything-Francis” squads will say about this. I am personally hoping we can see a rejection of capitalism (state sponsored usury) as well as Marxism and a renewed interest in Solidarism. It is a real shame how most people have no idea that there is another, CATHOLIC way to run an economic system.
The Pontiff Francis is himself “not burdened by the history” of the sadistic, mass-murdering Marxist ideology, because he doesn’t identify with the millions of souls slaughtered in the name of his political hero, the psycho-sexual sociopath Karl Marx.
What’s important to “his purpose in life” is that homicidal, sociopath, anti-Christ tyrants, like General Secretary Xi, are preferred to to ascend to establishment power on every continent.
This is the gruesome reality signified by the two photo-stunts staged by the Pontiff Francis, when he first received his gift of the Hammer-and-Sickle-Crucifix, and subsequently orchestrated the worship of the idol Pachamama: what he reveres is not Christ crucified, but the empire that built the cross used to crucify him.
So the Pontiff Francis now presides over the “marriage-he-made-in-hell,” having collaborated with his longtime friend McCarrick, the sociopath-sodomic-sex-abuser, to sign the Pontiff’s “secret accord” with “their one, true god,” the Communist Party in China.
And now the self-identified progressive church apologists, in alliance with self-identified “moderate” and even “conservative” church apologists, have the opportunity to don the costume of the neo-ultramontanists, and sheepishly bleat out their message of the day, that the Church is not utterly polluted, but instead, it is “indefectible.”
But in battle against those voices is the Lion of Judah, the Word Made Flesh, Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, who is the head of the Body of Christ, and supreme Judge of the steward.
The denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), is the source of all heresy including the modernist Marxist heresy of the atheist materialist over population alarmist globalists whose end goal is the objectification of the human person, as they designate the State to be their god of tyranny.
Shall we now ask God to Bless this tyranny even though such tyranny is anathema?
Surely if we choose to have that which is not Holy Blessed we become accursed.
Catholicism is Holy while Marxism, which can never be reconciled with Christ, is not.
A better world will only come when nations embrace the Catholic faith and proclaim Christ as King. It will not come from atheistic ideologies or compromising with them. Our Lady of Fatima warned us.
This is actually quite terrifying. I think human history gives us a darn pretty good idea of what Marxism does to governments and the people who are governed under Marxism. God help us.
“The common good” is not at all what most people assume it is. The truism, “a rising tide lifts all boats” shows a particular element (in this case water) affecting all that it touches, but just because all boats are lifted doesn’t mean that the water has advanced the common good, rather it has only facilitated a [universal] composite of particular goods.
Moving from boats to people, just because a particular political act has increased prosperity (and of course socialism hasn’t a track record proving anything of the sort) that also would be an amalgam of individual goods—the common good hasn’t been affected in any way. Even the building of a dam or a road or a reservoir for the benefit of those living nearby only multiplies individual goods.
The common good has to do with the ability of individuals to advance towards perfection, and thus economic questions have little to nothing to do with it. Our perfection consists in holiness, a deepening relationship with God, the proliferation of the sacraments, and freedom to choose the good. (Charles de Koninck has a lifetime of work dedicated to explaining this.)
Moreover, the suggestion that this project will allow peace to “grow from below,” beginning on the human level, woefully misunderstands grace as a gift from above, and that peace is “the tranquility of order, (Augustine) which again requires a turning to God and rejection of materialistic solutions to spiritual problems.
You can’t mix oil and water no matter how much you talk about it. Dialogue in this case is only good in clarifying both positions and acknowledging the impossibility of reconciliation. From there mutual agreement on respecting rights of both parties to live separately in peace could POSSIBLY be worked out. But this is highly unlikely long term due to our sinful nature.
Marxism is an ideology of building a perfect world through the murders of millions of innocents. That poor old man who envisions a dialogue with satanic evil is either uneducated or demented.
With a head stuck in the sixties this individual has us doing déjà vu all over again? This is pitiful, pathetic and scandalous. One would ascribe it to geriatric diminishment but he operates with a staff of the equally ideological malcontent who are not quite as advanced in the life journey.
Marxism has a trail of corpses behind it far, far longer than National Socialism and it continues its holocaust at this very moment. Our Chinese brothers and sisters in the Faith have been sold into its slavery by the present Vatican administration. In all honesty, this pronouncement actually makes the recent endorsement of blessings for sodomites look quite tame.
No one is undermining the Bergoglian enterprise with any honest critique. It is doing it to itself and boldly.
One wonders if Francis’ embrace of the road to serfdom stems from his resentment of market economies having to regularly impose sensible terms for bailing out his persistently failed country.
A financial version of the classic definition of insanity is buying Argentine government bonds and expecting it won’t default on them again.
A theological version might be trying to unite Catholicism with Marxism and expecting the combination not to be a betrayal of Catholic principles.
I say let the global Marxists send financial support to the Vatican and the real Cathokics in the Church use their dobations to support well-documented orthodox efforts regarding charity.
Maybe a visit to the iron law of oligarchy is needed in order to understand what went wrong with Marxism and what goes wrong with most human ideologies and what will always go unless one is grounded in humility and under the Lordship of a higher authority. The RCC learned very early in its history that an oligarchic structure was needed. Is the RCC now seriously trying to change that to a more democratic ‘synodality’? Is that the ‘why’ for the new (well more open) attraction to Marxism. Hmm. OK, how about Francis present another document comparing the lives of Christ and Marx. Marx was a horror especially to his own family. By their fruits you shall know them. The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate, the dispensing of which is carried out by his men in black, in order to pacify the masses from an otherwise meaningless existence and from questioning the oligarchs and those who seek to control them. Sometimes, often actually, it has been so. But Jesus, in righteous anger, overturned that mentality (in the temple) – he didn’t flirt with it or try to incorporate it into his teachings. Just a few thoughts.
OK, dialogue and seeking to understand other beliefs is always good but we’ve done this already in relation to Marxism (Liberation Theology???) and it indeed has become the co-foundation for the social justice movement in the Church. The difference between the two (Christ and Marx (besides their whole life example) is the means of achieving justice especially in regard to those who well, don’t cooperate – what do we do with those pests? (We can excommunicate them I suppose both spiritually and physically – cut them off paint them as evil). So, why these headlines? To make the world like the RCC more? Yes, there are sociological similarities between what most perceive as a Marxist approach (distribution of wealth) and the first Christian communities; yes, there’s a similarity there, but really, there’s not a lot more.
Because of my research into clergy sexual abuse, misconduct, activity, crimes, and Francis’s approach to especially adult victims of the likes of Randy Rupnik the Misconductor, which I am quite sure now is founded on some weird perception that these victims simply should not feel like victims and only do so because they have an approach to sex of someone ‘still in diapers’ and, therefore, it is they who are actually in the wrong. I cannot fathom that he does what he does otherwise. I really have come to believe that Francis believes that Catholicism is or should be merely a psycho-social humanism, a philosophy, able to be changed with debate and ‘new discoveries’ – very Jesuit. Nah, not for me or billions of others – makes no sense without a higher divinity beyond the mere wording of concepts God, Trinity, Christ, which I’ve come to think Francis has become a master at (wording), using all his Jesuitical training and prowess. He seems like a nice chap, though, doing all the nice justice things. And I often hear him talking, preaching, and then think it must be me who has it wrong.
We read: “The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate…”
I do disagree, but just for fun, over half century ago and as a student before one doctoral seminar in interdisciplinary urban and regional planning, I pulled the screen down about one foot after chalking atop the green board “planning is the opiate of the intellectuals.”
For writing space and midway through the class the screen was lifted, and was met with a long and blank silence at both the front of the class and among all the students. I realized that no one in the group even recognized what was being parsed. An eraser fixed the cognitive dissonance and we moved collectively into the future, some would say a bit like rhetorically erasing the magisterium.
Well, Peter, I do sort of say that (that Francis probably really does believe that religion is merely an opiate) with a little smile, sort of how I respond when people use that saying, “Is the Pope Catholic”? Hmm…. But my conclusions come from, yes, a very deep cynicism which has developed because of my insights into the minds and politics of the clergy or more so, the hierarchy, and the scales sort of fell away; my naivety was very traumatically dissolved; and all I saw before me where men who weren’t just sinners – I can cope with that – but more so, men who when push came to shove, really didn’t care about those they said they cared for; really didn’t believe in the Gospels, and what they taught us; holiness; prayer; purity; none of it, and for some not even God. But, they had found a lifestyle in which they were so well catered for, so why leave? They don’t really practice poverty in any meaningful way (I do, or have to not the least becasue of the effects of abuse), they in turn have all their needs catered for; obedience has come to mean more or less nothing, but I need to practice ‘obedience’ because of my committment to my wife and family; and as for cchastity, well, the research suyggests its a myth – so easy for clergy to get sex on the side. HOWEVER, when this is exposed, they have a huge institution of other men who when it comes to sex and relationships are for the most, stuck in an adolescent mentality anyway so they just don’t get it, and so are ready to defned them like Francis has done with Rupnik, (this is also clericalism by the way), and who have so much money and power with which to do this. As such, generally, any accusations are dismissed by clergy who have little sense of the damage that has been caused – to have this would be too convicting – as well as a general attitude of the flock that those on the noble journey of celibacy are more readily believed over those who it is too often believed, must have tempted them off that journey.
So, yes, I really have come to believe that the RCC and its leaders are mere politicians and sociologists but fully understand the power of spiritual language not because they actually really do believe what they say but because they believe people need to believe it, so this is what they give them – ‘spiritual’ opioids. The only thing that makes me doubt my conclusion here, is Frank’s fight against the traditional Catholics about whom many might say are fully addicted to a certain type of opiate. And then I came across this little gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02XoELK1Xo
An act of mutual contradiction! History tells us that such cooperation is an illogical proposition! The Marxist leftists hate the unborn in particular and are at the forefront of ensuring that they perish! Where Is there even a hint of basic logic in what the Pope is asking?
With all the questionable goings on in the Vatican finances, shouldn’t the Vatican be working on its own problems to establish its competency to speak?
Marxists cannot be taken lightly. As human beings, Marxists have a lot to contribute in enriching fellow mortals to realize their true and full potential.
An absolutely ridiculous and shameful comment. I think the 500 million bodycount argues against that. There is nothing that Marxists say that believers need to hear.
It’s time for a chat across ideological boundaries. And a chat that reaffirms LAW and yet is not burdened by HISTORY? Which law, and what history?
“…one can and must say simply that Marxism failed as an all-embracing interpretation of reality and a directive for action in history [!]. Its promise of freedom, equality and welfare for all was not verified by the empirical facts; it was shown to be false on the basis of political and economic facts. Although these assessments are correct, one would remain on a superficial level if one were to be content with them. Rather, we must take one step farther [today, synodally “walking together”?] and ask: But what is specifically false in this interpretation of the world and in the praxis [Stalinism, etc.] deduced from it? An exact observation of the events leads directly to the heart of the matter: the power of the spirit, the power of convictions, of suffering and hopes, has thrown down the existing structures. This means that the materialism which wanted to reduce the spirit to a mere consequence of material structures [the “law” of history!], to the mere superstructure of the economic system [!], has been brought down. But here we are no longer speaking only of the problem of Marxism and its world of states [now the paradisiacal China, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.]—we are speaking about ourselves. For materialism is a problem that affects us all; its breakdown compels all of us to an examination of conscience” (Ratzinger, “Turning Point for History,” Ignatius, 1994).
The FAMILY, too, is only a consequence of economic forces (F. Engels, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, originally Zurich 1884). What, then, of Natural Law?
So now, a dialogue with “concrete” Marxists–in what way distinguishable from Marxism (?)–and this theological riddle in the hands of Prefect Fernandez who seems skilled in only the rhetorical harmonization of contemporary “polarities,” since nothing deeper or more concrete (!) seems to be on the synodal roundtable.
Skilled and skilleted—”from the frying pan [the, yes, imperfect market economy] into the [perfect]fire”?
About any “chat across ideological boundaries,” the presumed “harmonization of polarities” (both my wording), and the fallacy (!) of any third way between Capitalism and Socialism, the Catholic Social Teaching is not a middling third way, but rather the “negation of ideology”.
So, in regard to the noted rule of LAW (Pope Francis), and from a predecessor who lived through the (erased?) HISTORY of Communism and who wrote on the threshold of the 21st Century, the following clarification from St. John Paul II—when asked whether capitalism was the path for a post-Soviet eastern Europe and beyond:
“The answer is obviously complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector [papal caricature: “invisible hand”, “finance and market mechanisms”?], then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a STRONG JURIDICAL FRAMEWORK which places it at the service of HUMAN FREEDOM IN ITS TOTALITY, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the CORE OF WHICH IS ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS, then the reply is certainly negative” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, CA n. 44, caps added).
Without diminishing the value of grounded dialogue (more than a flat-table synodal “process”?), what more is the perennial and incarnational Catholic Church bringing to its engagement with Marxists/Marxism, in addition to only a call for “poetry” and “creativity” (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/january/documents/20240110-dialop.html). More than a polarity, the Catholic Social Teaching “belongs to the field . . . of theology and particularly moral theology” (CA n. 55; Rerum Novarum n. 153).
Peter. This may well be, reading with moderately jaundiced eyes an adroit overture by His Holiness to expand the cooperative success of his Vatican China policy to include the universal Church.
Humor aside, admittedly, this pontificate has attracted ranking churchmen who have an affinity with Marxist socialist doctrine. We’re aware of high praise for the China regime being touted as a near perfect assimile of Christianity. Indeed there is that resemblance of communal equanimity inclusive of goods. His Holiness has expressed as much in his social doctrine, we recall his universal salary proposal, also his consistent appeal for the poor which is the perceived good of Marxism, a tenet of the Gospels. The difference is this pontificate minimizes the moral dimension as revealed by Christ in favor of a Marxist type of communal justice.
And it is hard to avoid wondering if his minimalizing of personal moral dimensions and heroic responses of personal virtue to heal fragile human woundedness or combat darkest humanity, inspired in ways only accessible through religion, from divinely endowed graces and sacraments, might be due to a dearth of authentic faith in whatever vestigial religious sense does inspire or fails to inspire his mind and soul. Marxists have never hidden their absolutist faith, and conceits, in elitist ordered social engineering, murderously intolerant of counterrevolutionaries. A faith in an eventual restructuring of the Church and the world to eradicate all evil often seems to govern Francis’ publicly expressed values, no matter how he might use prepared, perfunctory Christian rhetoric in Angelus addresses that would imply the imperfectability of the human condition, short of Our Lord’s return, were he to consider the meaning of the actual words.
Thanks, dear Fr Peter Morello PhD.
Any political or social system that cancels or curtails the freedom of human persons to choose between right & wrong ethics is a system that opposes what God is doing in this Universe & World.
God, the source of all, is the freely choosing Spirit who always autonomously chooses merciful self-giving love, right-ethical holiness, & perfectly just goodness.
Humans are the only living beings that we know of that share the capacity to choose godly right ethics, or devilishly wrong ethics. We are all EChOs – ethically choosing organisms. It is a maximally serious matter to be a person “in God’s image & likeness” – the opportunities are truly spectacular, the dangers really dreadful.
When militia, politicians, and other social managers (including AI) coerce or dictate in such a way as to diminish or remove the possibility for individual ethical choice, they quench the image of God in us.
Regimented societies have a certain appeal to demi-god rulers and even, tragically, to many who simply want to live a simple life according to the ‘rules of the system’.
This is de-humanizing because it suppresses the freely ethically choosing image of God in us, our source of personhood and our resonance with Heaven.
May God preserve us from Marx, Putin, Xi Jin Ping, ‘Pope’ Francis, and all their like.
Ever in the freedom won for us by Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
“Pope Francis this week called for cooperation between Christians and Marxists as a way to achieve greater “dialogue” and help in the search for the “common good.”
Yes, because 20th Century history has given us ample evidence that Marxists have people’s best interests in mind 🙄. Francis, please just stop talking.
All sorts of useful idiots were conducting “dialogues” with the Marxists: PAX in Poland, Pacem in Terris in Czechoslovakia, etc. Under Paul VI, Catholic-Marxist dialogue went on steroids under the leadership of Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, a lunacy that did not stop until somebody who had real experience of Marxists — Karol Wojtyla — ended it. By then, the Hungarian hierarchy was largely a branch wing of the Hungarian Communist Party, the Czechoslovak sees were vacant, Uniate Catholics in Russia abandoned, etc. Now, the same mindset pursues this policy vis-a-vis Beijing, even though it is clear it is yielding nothing. One wishes Francis would stop his incessant “dialogues” and get down to doctrine (as it exists, not as he might wish it to be).
A revealing history! Thanks, dear John Grondelski.
Do you think this leopard can change his spots . . ?
I think Fidel Cadtro needs help harvesting his sugar cane crop. I’ve volunteered the name of one Jorge Bergoglio as sumpathetic to the cause.
I was so tempted to quip, when was the last time any Jesuit did an honest day’s work? Then my guardian angel kicked me and reminded me of the good Jesuits I met when I did some amount (not enough) of missionary work in the third world.
It’s great to see the pope getting past “rigid ideologies,” isn’t it? Ideologies that don’t starve millions, put opposing voices in gulags, build iron curtains to keep people from fleeing oppression, suppress religion, on and on. Marxism has such a stellar resume of greater dialogue and search for the greater good.
This pontiff continues to astonish.
O Lord, how long?
I’m getting confused.
Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that you weren’t supposed to sup with the devil?
Yes, but he was referring to other people, not himself 🙄.
(Sigh.)
Why am I not surprised?
One hundred innocents murdered over the past century isn’t enough to show what a bad idea this is?
How could someone this stupid have tied the Church into such knots?
I meant one hundred *million* innocents murdered over the past hundred years.
Sorry.
Actually, historians have now revised the figure closer to 140 million. And this does not include the aborted babies.
I am increasingly of the opinion that Pope Francis is not stupid at all. He and those he elevated to be cardinals know exactly what they are doing. They are working according to the plan worked out by the modernists at Vatican II to make the Church more compatible with the spirit of the modern age. A spirit directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus and they will fail. As Pope Benedict predicted we will become a much smaller Church, as many will decide they don’t need the Church at all. They will not see them selves as sinners in need of salvation.
Mr. Snow,
You get the BINGO prize! The Pope and his cardinals know EXACTLY what they are doing. Just as former president Obama, upon becoming a US President, advised that “America is about to undergo a “fundamental” change”, so to is Francis implementing fundamental changes with the other men who seem to be acting as politicians in the Vatican. Yes, they know exactly what they are doing, and perhaps, Archbishop Vigano has it right that the Swiss Guards at the Vatican should arrest the Pope and his seditious and heretical cohorts and remove them from the Lord’s Holy of Holies here on earth.
JCALAS!
“Dialogue” often leads to compromise. As in, you say 2+2=4; I say 2+2=6; so the correct answer must be that 2+2=5.
Someday, will we have St. Marx, patron of murderous ideologies? Perhaps there will be St. Pollyanna, patroness of dangerously naive dialogue?
As a Jesuit, this meeting is like the Pope talking to himself.
The Christian and Marxist conceptions of the common good are diametrically opposed. We should dismiss the Holy Father’s call for cooperation with groups and governments who have murdered well over 100 million in the last century and are determined to finish the job. The ongoing betrayal of Catholics and others who continue to suffer vicious persecution under Communist regimes like those in China and Nicaragua is one of the many and most serious scandals that will be this papacy’s legacy.
I’m already imagining what the “anti-everything-Francis” squads will say about this. I am personally hoping we can see a rejection of capitalism (state sponsored usury) as well as Marxism and a renewed interest in Solidarism. It is a real shame how most people have no idea that there is another, CATHOLIC way to run an economic system.
The Pontiff Francis is himself “not burdened by the history” of the sadistic, mass-murdering Marxist ideology, because he doesn’t identify with the millions of souls slaughtered in the name of his political hero, the psycho-sexual sociopath Karl Marx.
What’s important to “his purpose in life” is that homicidal, sociopath, anti-Christ tyrants, like General Secretary Xi, are preferred to to ascend to establishment power on every continent.
This is the gruesome reality signified by the two photo-stunts staged by the Pontiff Francis, when he first received his gift of the Hammer-and-Sickle-Crucifix, and subsequently orchestrated the worship of the idol Pachamama: what he reveres is not Christ crucified, but the empire that built the cross used to crucify him.
So the Pontiff Francis now presides over the “marriage-he-made-in-hell,” having collaborated with his longtime friend McCarrick, the sociopath-sodomic-sex-abuser, to sign the Pontiff’s “secret accord” with “their one, true god,” the Communist Party in China.
And now the self-identified progressive church apologists, in alliance with self-identified “moderate” and even “conservative” church apologists, have the opportunity to don the costume of the neo-ultramontanists, and sheepishly bleat out their message of the day, that the Church is not utterly polluted, but instead, it is “indefectible.”
But in battle against those voices is the Lion of Judah, the Word Made Flesh, Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, who is the head of the Body of Christ, and supreme Judge of the steward.
Pope Francis can’t quit talking.He has the condition known as compulsive talking. I think it’s a mental and or emotional illness.
It called loggorheia. It’s a chronic condition in his case.
Correct.
Silence is of little value to him. Deep thought, not his strong point, ever. Only the endless nonsense of jesuit-speak.
The denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), is the source of all heresy including the modernist Marxist heresy of the atheist materialist over population alarmist globalists whose end goal is the objectification of the human person, as they designate the State to be their god of tyranny.
Shall we now ask God to Bless this tyranny even though such tyranny is anathema?
Surely if we choose to have that which is not Holy Blessed we become accursed.
Catholicism is Holy while Marxism, which can never be reconciled with Christ, is not.
Didn’t our Immaculate Mother warn us about this at Fatima?
A better world will only come when nations embrace the Catholic faith and proclaim Christ as King. It will not come from atheistic ideologies or compromising with them. Our Lady of Fatima warned us.
This is actually quite terrifying. I think human history gives us a darn pretty good idea of what Marxism does to governments and the people who are governed under Marxism. God help us.
“The common good” is not at all what most people assume it is. The truism, “a rising tide lifts all boats” shows a particular element (in this case water) affecting all that it touches, but just because all boats are lifted doesn’t mean that the water has advanced the common good, rather it has only facilitated a [universal] composite of particular goods.
Moving from boats to people, just because a particular political act has increased prosperity (and of course socialism hasn’t a track record proving anything of the sort) that also would be an amalgam of individual goods—the common good hasn’t been affected in any way. Even the building of a dam or a road or a reservoir for the benefit of those living nearby only multiplies individual goods.
The common good has to do with the ability of individuals to advance towards perfection, and thus economic questions have little to nothing to do with it. Our perfection consists in holiness, a deepening relationship with God, the proliferation of the sacraments, and freedom to choose the good. (Charles de Koninck has a lifetime of work dedicated to explaining this.)
Moreover, the suggestion that this project will allow peace to “grow from below,” beginning on the human level, woefully misunderstands grace as a gift from above, and that peace is “the tranquility of order, (Augustine) which again requires a turning to God and rejection of materialistic solutions to spiritual problems.
You can’t mix oil and water no matter how much you talk about it. Dialogue in this case is only good in clarifying both positions and acknowledging the impossibility of reconciliation. From there mutual agreement on respecting rights of both parties to live separately in peace could POSSIBLY be worked out. But this is highly unlikely long term due to our sinful nature.
Marxism is an ideology of building a perfect world through the murders of millions of innocents. That poor old man who envisions a dialogue with satanic evil is either uneducated or demented.
With a head stuck in the sixties this individual has us doing déjà vu all over again? This is pitiful, pathetic and scandalous. One would ascribe it to geriatric diminishment but he operates with a staff of the equally ideological malcontent who are not quite as advanced in the life journey.
Marxism has a trail of corpses behind it far, far longer than National Socialism and it continues its holocaust at this very moment. Our Chinese brothers and sisters in the Faith have been sold into its slavery by the present Vatican administration. In all honesty, this pronouncement actually makes the recent endorsement of blessings for sodomites look quite tame.
No one is undermining the Bergoglian enterprise with any honest critique. It is doing it to itself and boldly.
One wonders if Francis’ embrace of the road to serfdom stems from his resentment of market economies having to regularly impose sensible terms for bailing out his persistently failed country.
A financial version of the classic definition of insanity is buying Argentine government bonds and expecting it won’t default on them again.
A theological version might be trying to unite Catholicism with Marxism and expecting the combination not to be a betrayal of Catholic principles.
I say let the global Marxists send financial support to the Vatican and the real Cathokics in the Church use their dobations to support well-documented orthodox efforts regarding charity.
Maybe a visit to the iron law of oligarchy is needed in order to understand what went wrong with Marxism and what goes wrong with most human ideologies and what will always go unless one is grounded in humility and under the Lordship of a higher authority. The RCC learned very early in its history that an oligarchic structure was needed. Is the RCC now seriously trying to change that to a more democratic ‘synodality’? Is that the ‘why’ for the new (well more open) attraction to Marxism. Hmm. OK, how about Francis present another document comparing the lives of Christ and Marx. Marx was a horror especially to his own family. By their fruits you shall know them. The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate, the dispensing of which is carried out by his men in black, in order to pacify the masses from an otherwise meaningless existence and from questioning the oligarchs and those who seek to control them. Sometimes, often actually, it has been so. But Jesus, in righteous anger, overturned that mentality (in the temple) – he didn’t flirt with it or try to incorporate it into his teachings. Just a few thoughts.
OK, dialogue and seeking to understand other beliefs is always good but we’ve done this already in relation to Marxism (Liberation Theology???) and it indeed has become the co-foundation for the social justice movement in the Church. The difference between the two (Christ and Marx (besides their whole life example) is the means of achieving justice especially in regard to those who well, don’t cooperate – what do we do with those pests? (We can excommunicate them I suppose both spiritually and physically – cut them off paint them as evil). So, why these headlines? To make the world like the RCC more? Yes, there are sociological similarities between what most perceive as a Marxist approach (distribution of wealth) and the first Christian communities; yes, there’s a similarity there, but really, there’s not a lot more.
Because of my research into clergy sexual abuse, misconduct, activity, crimes, and Francis’s approach to especially adult victims of the likes of Randy Rupnik the Misconductor, which I am quite sure now is founded on some weird perception that these victims simply should not feel like victims and only do so because they have an approach to sex of someone ‘still in diapers’ and, therefore, it is they who are actually in the wrong. I cannot fathom that he does what he does otherwise. I really have come to believe that Francis believes that Catholicism is or should be merely a psycho-social humanism, a philosophy, able to be changed with debate and ‘new discoveries’ – very Jesuit. Nah, not for me or billions of others – makes no sense without a higher divinity beyond the mere wording of concepts God, Trinity, Christ, which I’ve come to think Francis has become a master at (wording), using all his Jesuitical training and prowess. He seems like a nice chap, though, doing all the nice justice things. And I often hear him talking, preaching, and then think it must be me who has it wrong.
We read: “The only reason I can think of for Francis wanting to ‘dialogue’ with Marxists is that he probably does really believe that religion is merely an opiate…”
I do disagree, but just for fun, over half century ago and as a student before one doctoral seminar in interdisciplinary urban and regional planning, I pulled the screen down about one foot after chalking atop the green board “planning is the opiate of the intellectuals.”
For writing space and midway through the class the screen was lifted, and was met with a long and blank silence at both the front of the class and among all the students. I realized that no one in the group even recognized what was being parsed. An eraser fixed the cognitive dissonance and we moved collectively into the future, some would say a bit like rhetorically erasing the magisterium.
Well, Peter, I do sort of say that (that Francis probably really does believe that religion is merely an opiate) with a little smile, sort of how I respond when people use that saying, “Is the Pope Catholic”? Hmm…. But my conclusions come from, yes, a very deep cynicism which has developed because of my insights into the minds and politics of the clergy or more so, the hierarchy, and the scales sort of fell away; my naivety was very traumatically dissolved; and all I saw before me where men who weren’t just sinners – I can cope with that – but more so, men who when push came to shove, really didn’t care about those they said they cared for; really didn’t believe in the Gospels, and what they taught us; holiness; prayer; purity; none of it, and for some not even God. But, they had found a lifestyle in which they were so well catered for, so why leave? They don’t really practice poverty in any meaningful way (I do, or have to not the least becasue of the effects of abuse), they in turn have all their needs catered for; obedience has come to mean more or less nothing, but I need to practice ‘obedience’ because of my committment to my wife and family; and as for cchastity, well, the research suyggests its a myth – so easy for clergy to get sex on the side. HOWEVER, when this is exposed, they have a huge institution of other men who when it comes to sex and relationships are for the most, stuck in an adolescent mentality anyway so they just don’t get it, and so are ready to defned them like Francis has done with Rupnik, (this is also clericalism by the way), and who have so much money and power with which to do this. As such, generally, any accusations are dismissed by clergy who have little sense of the damage that has been caused – to have this would be too convicting – as well as a general attitude of the flock that those on the noble journey of celibacy are more readily believed over those who it is too often believed, must have tempted them off that journey.
So, yes, I really have come to believe that the RCC and its leaders are mere politicians and sociologists but fully understand the power of spiritual language not because they actually really do believe what they say but because they believe people need to believe it, so this is what they give them – ‘spiritual’ opioids. The only thing that makes me doubt my conclusion here, is Frank’s fight against the traditional Catholics about whom many might say are fully addicted to a certain type of opiate. And then I came across this little gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t02XoELK1Xo
Dear Stephen, thank you for your insightful analyses of our dire situation.
Thanks for the brilliant Cardinal Sheen clip; I’ve never appreciated a prophet in action as much as by this.
Stay strong in The Love of The LORD; blessings from marty
An act of mutual contradiction! History tells us that such cooperation is an illogical proposition! The Marxist leftists hate the unborn in particular and are at the forefront of ensuring that they perish! Where Is there even a hint of basic logic in what the Pope is asking?
With all the questionable goings on in the Vatican finances, shouldn’t the Vatican be working on its own problems to establish its competency to speak?
How long before even the secular media start to wonder if Francis has rocks in his head?
Marxists cannot be taken lightly. As human beings, Marxists have a lot to contribute in enriching fellow mortals to realize their true and full potential.
And, brain washing camps, are a great marxist tool to do that!
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free!
An absolutely ridiculous and shameful comment. I think the 500 million bodycount argues against that. There is nothing that Marxists say that believers need to hear.