Video: Will Pope Francis go left on economics?

posted at 12:41 pm on March 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

(VATICAN CITY) Of all the questions I’ve fielded since the election of former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis, the one that has been most difficult to answer clearly is the direction in which the new pontiff will take the Catholic Church on economics.  It’s no secret that while Pope Francis clashed with the Kirchner government in Argentina over its policies on abortion and gay marriage, he also sharply criticized its policies on fiscal austerity and its impact on the nation’s poor.  That has some American conservatives worried that the new Pope will push the debate to the left in the US.

I asked Kishore Jayalaban of the Acton Institute to talk with me about that very question.  Jayalaban has lived in Italy for more than a dozen years, part of them working at the Vatican, and he says the impression that Francis will push economic arguments to the left is a misunderstanding of both Catholic economic thought and the economic situation in Argentina — where capitalism is much more rife with cronyism and corporatism than in the US.  While Catholic doctrine teaches that public policy must offer preferential treatment of the poor, Jayalaban explains that this leaves a wide spectrum of options that fall within “prudential judgment.”  Jayalaban is working on an Acton endeavor called Poverty Cure, which just launched — fortuitous timing:

Kishore Jayabalan on the economics of Pope Francis from Ed Morrissey on Vimeo.

Jayalaban’s colleague at Acton Sam Gregg also addressed this today at National Review:

No one in their right mind would describe Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., as an ecclesiastical Milton Friedman or a closet free marketer. Plainly, he’s not. But Francis does have two particular concerns with regard to economic issues. One is the naked materialism and consumerism that disfigures so many peoples’ lives. No Catholic is going to affirm people seeking their salvation in the endless acquisition of stuff. Francis’s asceticism is a clear repudiation of that mindset.

Francis’s second concern regarding economic issues is the materially poor. Again, that’s precisely what you would expect from any orthodox Catholic. As Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia (who’s no social liberal) once memorably wrote: “Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. Period.” …

Argentina is a once-prosperous nation that experienced a rapid spiral into seemingly perpetual economic dysfunction throughout the 20th century. Over and over again, Argentina has been brought to its knees by the populist politics of Peronism, which dominates Argentina’s Right and Left. “Kirchnerism,” as peddled by Argentina’s present and immediate past president, is simply the latest version of that.

In concrete terms, this pathology translates into big government, high taxes, hostility to business and foreign investment, heavy debt, and a level of corruption that defies imagination. That adds up to a strange mixture of unsophisticated Keynesianism and naked crony capitalism. And it doesn’t benefit the poor. It benefits the powerful and well-connected. In Argentina, you don’t get ahead through being economically entrepreneurial; you get ahead through political power and as many privileges from the state as you can.

This is the disaster that Pope Francis’s limited commentary on economic matters has sought to address since he became Argentina’s leading churchman in 1998. And Francis has made it abundantly clear that liberation theology is not the solution. One of the reasons he’s not so popular with some of his fellow Jesuits is that he stopped the Jesuits in Argentina from going down that path in the 1970s and 80s. Liberation theology’s Marxist components, he knew, were plainly incompatible with Catholicism. Father Bergoglio also foresaw that it would turn much of the Church into nothing more than just another utopian-revolutionary movement, as occurred in other parts of Latin America.

Jayalaban also explains that Curial reform really refers to the kind of organizational issues that are hardly unique to the Vatican.  Also explaining Curial reform was Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, a theologian working in Rome, and a fellow American.  I wanted to speak with Fr. Marcel after he debunked a story about a “dossier” that caught fire in the world press based on … well, not much at all, as Fr. Marcel explains here:

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo from Ed Morrissey on Vimeo.

I recorded this interview on Wednesday afternoon, but the surprisingly short election ended up pushing this back until today.  Fr. Marcel stood in the rain for about 20 minutes to answer my questions, and he’s a Hot Air fan … or at least he was, until I made him get soaked.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Two words.

Social Justice.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

and the economic situation in Argentina — where capitalism is much more rife with cronyism and corporatism than in the US.

But we are doing our best to catch up with them.

The best thing you can offer a poor person is a job.

rbj on March 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM

That picture doesn’t look at all like the love child of Mr. Burns and Apu Nahasapeemapetilon.

DarkCurrent on March 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Not to be offensive to any Catholics on here, but I never got the feeling that the Pope was particularly influential in the public policy realm in the US. At worst, a left leaning pope might give some liberal politicians here a convenient soundbite or two.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Par for the course. No surprise.

Mr. Arrogant on March 15, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Two words.

Social Justice.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Those two words are so over-used they are now meaningless.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM

After reading about the life and times of our new dear Pope Francis, it occurs to me that I need to look at my own life and my attraction to material things. I personally need to resolve to get rid of a lot of material possessions and give more to the poor.

I personally can do more than I am doing now.

Thank you, Ed for this post.

Lily on March 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Is that Satan in the pic??

Mimzey on March 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Here is my view of the “concerns” of the Socialist State, for the poor, and one that I hope the Pope keeps in mind:

John 12:4 – Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

[5] Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

[6] This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Two words.

Social Justice.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

There’s nothing wrong with social justice…as long as it’s not mandated, legislated, and administered by government.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The call of Jesus is for individual believers to visit the sick, feed the poor and be fathers to the fatherless. It isn’t for forcing non-believers via the barrel of a gun (government) to do so. Any teaching by Protestant or Catholic bodies that go beyond what the mandate of Jesus gave is man’s law not God’s law.

chemman on March 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM

After reading about the life and times of our new dear Pope Francis, it occurs to me that I need to look at my own life and my attraction to material things. I personally need to resolve to get rid of a lot of material possessions and give more to the poor.

I personally can do more than I am doing now.

Thank you, Ed for this post.

Lily on March 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Did not Jesus tell you these things, in the New Testament? It took the Pope for that to sink in?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

I personally can do more than I am doing now.

Thank you, Ed for this post.

Lily on March 15, 2013 at 12:57 PM

That is the individual responsibility that Jesus commanded.

chemman on March 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM

There’s nothing wrong with social justice…as long as it’s not mandated, legislated, and administered by government.

Trafalgar on March 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Everyone believes in social justice–their idea of a just society. Unfortunately leftists (especially within mainline protestantism) have co-opted the phrase to lend support to their desire for the ever-increasing intervention of the state.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Did not Jesus tell you these things, in the New Testament? It took the Pope for that to sink in?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Did not Jesus also tell you that we should love one another. Instead of upbraiding lily you should have been rejoicing that she gets it.

chemman on March 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

If the Roman Catholic Church were to shift in the direction of calling for an elevation of concern for the poor it would really have to lead by example. As I understand it, the RCC worldwide is itself quite wealthy, particularly at its upper echelons and the Vatican. Were it to start calling for ‘more’ for the poor then wouldn’t the world be justified in asking the RCC to open its own coffers, sell off a bunch of its art and other treasures to show its commitment to the concept ? What good does ‘the poor’ derive from the RCC’s massive collection of art and artifacts ?

mdavt on March 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Two words.

Social Justice.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Social justice and liberation theology are two different things.

Ward Cleaver on March 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Infallible on matters of faith and morals, not economics. HELLO! Somehow I knew this was going to happen. Let the divide get bigger and bigger.

TruLevinian on March 15, 2013 at 1:05 PM

If the Roman Catholic Church were to shift in the direction of calling for an elevation of concern for the poor it would really have to lead by example. As I understand it, the RCC worldwide is itself quite wealthy, particularly at its upper echelons and the Vatican. Were it to start calling for ‘more’ for the poor then wouldn’t the world be justified in asking the RCC to open its own coffers, sell off a bunch of its art and other treasures to show its commitment to the concept ? What good does ‘the poor’ derive from the RCC’s massive collection of art and artifacts ?

mdavt on March 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The Church could sell off everything, but that money would only last so long. Remember, Jesus said, “the poor you will always have with you”. And it’s not only about treasure, it’s about talent, and time.

Ward Cleaver on March 15, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Did not Jesus also tell you that we should love one another. Instead of upbraiding lily you should have been rejoicing that she gets it.

chemman on March 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

I find it disturbing that a message is only made clear and recognizable and acceptable only when a mere man delivers it, instead of when Jesus Christ delivers it.

If that offends you, that’s just too bad for you.

I’ve heard many disturbing things, lately.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Those two words are so over-used they are now meaningless.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Social justice, when used today, almost always means: “the government should mandate massive wealth transfers from the middle class to government bureaucrats who will redistribute it to the poor (after taking their cut of course).”

Whenever I see the term used, I assume I’m dealing with at least a squishy leftist if not a hardcore one.

Doomberg on March 15, 2013 at 1:09 PM

From the core principals espoused by The Acton Institute one of them are the Rule of Law and the concept of Subsidiarity and the Role of Government. Some body on this site, maybe, “Weight of Glory” or CW for Freedom, sorry I forgot, but they did a terrific job of explaining the subject of subsidiarity. Father Sirico President of the Acton Institute also speaks of subsidiarity frequently. I pray Pope Francis emphasizes the need and moral necessity of Work and that promoting a healthy business climate is far superior to hand outs.

fourdeucer on March 15, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Thank you Ed !
Best information out there by far .

Lucano on March 15, 2013 at 1:10 PM

What good does ‘the poor’ derive from the RCC’s massive collection of art and artifacts ?

mdavt on March 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

About as much good as the hordes of Starvin Marvins get from America throwing food at them year after year?

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 1:10 PM

P.S.

Did not Jesus also tell you that we should love one another. Instead of upbraiding lily you should have been rejoicing that she gets it.

chemman on March 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Didn’t you just “upbraid” me?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Were it to start calling for ‘more’ for the poor then wouldn’t the world be justified in asking the RCC to open its own coffers, sell off a bunch of its art and other treasures to show its commitment to the concept ? What good does ‘the poor’ derive from the RCC’s massive collection of art and artifacts ?

The thing is, it doesn’t belong to the Vatican–it belongs to the entire church. And it’s open to the public to see and enjoy. Some of whom aren’t exactly going to see it in their Bentleys. If it was sold, much of it would vanish into private collections and not be seen again.

Given that the Church does more to feed and clothe the poor than any other entity in the world, that’s a somewhat misplaced (if common) objection.

DRPrice on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Did not Jesus tell you these things, in the New Testament? It took the Pope for that to sink in?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Yes I knew these things already. I tithe and give to the poor, support our local crisis pregnancy center, etc.

But, after reading about him, I realized that although I do not have access to a Cardinal’s mansion, I do live better than most of the world and I can give more than I do. There is no bus service in my little town, but, I could walk to work and donate the money I save to the poor. I really don’t need so many shoes. I am pretty sure I can clean out my closet of many clothes that would be a blessing to the less fortunate. I have things I don’t use that others might need. I should give them away.

It made me lose my complacency about what I already do.

Lily on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Let’s all start off with a universal global definition of “poor”. Unable to find water. Unable to feed oneself. Unable to afford shoes and clothes. Unable to find shelter. Anything beyond that?

Fogpig on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The best thing you can offer a poor person is a joban Opportunity.

rbj on March 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM

I agree 100%

antisocial on March 15, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I find it disturbing that a message is only made clear and recognizable and acceptable only when a mere man delivers it, instead of when Jesus Christ delivers it.

If that offends you, that’s just too bad for you.

I’ve heard many disturbing things, lately.

You mean, like Billy Graham?

Or Oswald Chambers?

Or, for that matter, Paul?

There’s a reason Christ sent harvesters into the field. Or Philip to explain things to the Ethiopian.

You’re straining at gnats.

DRPrice on March 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Luke: Hey, we Catholics do learn. ;) After all, we learned the hard way what happens when the Church becomes too involved in the secular realm.

At least for myself, I don’t _want_ the Pope to be listened to on purely secular matters _just because he’s the Pope_.

Scott H on March 15, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Whenever I see the term used, I assume I’m dealing with at least a squishy leftist if not a hardcore one.

Doomberg on March 15, 2013 at 1:09 PM

True but it isn’t exclusive to social justice. You can spot a leftie whenever they use a word and tack justice on it. Social justice, economic justice, racial justice, etc. All it means is that they want to take from one group and give to whatever victim group has somehow been unjustly treated by society.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM

In Argentina, you don’t get ahead through being economically entrepreneurial; you get ahead through political power and as many privileges from the state as you can.

This is the disaster that Pope Francis’s limited commentary on economic matters has sought to address since he became Argentina’s leading churchman in 1998. And Francis has made it abundantly clear that liberation theology is not the solution. One of the reasons he’s not so popular with some of his fellow Jesuits is that he stopped the Jesuits in Argentina from going down that path in the 1970s and 80s. Liberation theology’s Marxist components, he knew, were plainly incompatible with Catholicism. Father Bergoglio also foresaw that it would turn much of the Church into nothing more than just another utopian-revolutionary movement, as occurred in other parts of Latin America.

Best, most hopeful part of the article.

Fleuries on March 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Not to be offensive to any Catholics on here, but I never got the feeling that the Pope was particularly influential in the public policy realm in the US. At worst, a left leaning pope might give some liberal politicians here a convenient soundbite or two.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Nothing offensive about your statement.The Pope has the duty to explicate the social teaching of the RC Church. These teachings express a “preferential option for the poor”. Lay Catholics are required to implement these teachings in the world. However, the laity must use their prudential judgment. The pope’s preferences regarding state direction or free market public policy solutions are not binding on the lay person involved in public policy or economics. Similarly, lay Catholics are not required to credit the Pope’s weather forecasts.The “servile state” ignores wealth creation and assaults human dignity. The lay Catholic must use reason in concluding that the market system is the only vehicle for wealth creation. Socialism is a political ideology as free market capitalism is an economic and political system for analyzing social relations. One or the other cannot be proclaimed infallibly by the Pope. They are outside the realm of faith and morals.

If the Pope was a masterful public policy crusader the anti-Catholics would be correct that the moment of the Anti-Christ had arrived.

wraithby on March 15, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Let’s all start off with a universal global definition of “poor”. Unable to find water. Unable to feed oneself. Unable to afford shoes and clothes. Unable to find shelter. Anything beyond that?

Fogpig on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Oh! The left has a much more nuanced idea of poverty. You’ve got the traditional definition down which focuses on needs. But, of course, there also is relative poverty (and no I’m not talking about an uncle sleeping on a couch in the basement). The legions of “poor” in America also include those with but one car, window air conditioners in their Section 8 housing, and limited texting ability on their Obamaphones.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Help the poor help themselves. Teach a man to fish, don’t give him fish.

nazo311 on March 15, 2013 at 1:35 PM

A great idea for Pope Francis–propose taking money away from hard working citizens and giving it to lazy, drug-addicted, drunken bums in order to lock in their support.

oohhhhh I see what you mean. By that example Obama should be Pope!!!!Never mind…..

MaiDee on March 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM

…where capitalism is much more rife with cronyism and corporatism than in the US.

Not sure that’s possible.

Shump on March 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Let’s all start off with a universal global definition of “poor”. Unable to find water. Unable to feed oneself. Unable to afford shoes and clothes. Unable to find shelter. Anything beyond that?

Fogpig on March 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Or we could go in reverse. How about a standard which says that if you have any item on the following list, you are not poor?

1. A car.
2. A cell phone.
3. Cable or satellite TV.
4. A computer.
5. A PlayStation 3 or X-Box 360.

Shump on March 15, 2013 at 1:55 PM

While Catholic doctrine teaches that public policy must offer preferential treatment of the poor

If this is true (and I assume “public policy” equates to governmental action) then it is truly at odds with Scripture, which demands that no preference be given to either the poor or the rich.

Did not Jesus tell you these things, in the New Testament? It took the Pope for that to sink in?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Know ye every jot and tittle? Do you live every day abiding by every nuance of Christ’s Word? It took the example of a man to remind her of Christ’s commands and to encourage her.

2 Corinthians 3:3
And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Actually, I don’t need to look to Jesus for these things, either. They are given in the commandments that came before Christ’s incarnation.

I don’t say these things to upbraid you, but to encourage you and remind you of the grace in which we live by virtue of God’s steadfast love for us.

signed,
an anti-papist
:)

GWB on March 15, 2013 at 1:59 PM

i think any discussion of Catholics and helping the poor is incomplete without including the principle of subsidiarity — Functions of government, business, and other secular activities should be as local as possible.

It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79)

also, when addressing the poor, the Church if very much concerned about dignity. John Paul II addressed this: http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity

“Pope John Paul II took the “social assistance state” to task in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

NoVAHockey on March 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM

<blockquotePappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Catholic social justice, or the hijacking of it by progressive idiots?

Gatekeeper on March 15, 2013 at 2:15 PM

^ opps

Gatekeeper on March 15, 2013 at 2:16 PM

In his novel „How far can you go ?“ David Lodge, satirically, describes how Hell was dissolved.

How they lost the fear of Hell:

At some point in the nineteen sixties, Hell disappeared. No one could say for certain when this happened, First it was there, then it wasn´t. Different people became aware of the disappearance of Hell at different times. Some realized that they had been living for years as though Hell did not exist,, without having consciously registered its disappearance, others realized that they had been behaving, out of habit, as though Hell was still there, though in fact they had ceased to believe in its existence long ago.

By Hell we mean, of course, the traditional Hell of Roman Catholics, a place where you would burn for all eternity if you were unlucky enough to die in a state of mortal sin. On the whole, the disappearance of Hell was a great relief though it brought new problems.

In 1968, the campuses of the world rose in chain reaction revolt, Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, Robert Kennedy was assassinated and the civil rights movement started campaigning in Ulster. For Roman Catholics, however, the event of the year was undoubtedly the publication, on July 29, of the Pope´s long awaited encyclical letter on birth control, Humanae Vitae.

The new pope did say that “the businesses of the world are those of the devil”.

Thus, the devil is back.

It will be fun to watch the left and far left reconcile this with their favored “social justice” mantra.

The new pope will likely give the left and the right a run for their money/’money’ and the devil.

p.s. The author could not include the biggest resurgence of Hell, the bringing/keeping of Obama, by the Catholics in great part.

p.p.s. Relax, I don’t accuse you, the Catholics, of it, exclusively. All who brung/kept him can go to Hell, with Obama. He might be el diablo, or close to it.

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2013 at 2:23 PM

You mean, like Billy Graham?

Or Oswald Chambers?

Or, for that matter, Paul?

There’s a reason Christ sent harvesters into the field. Or Philip to explain things to the Ethiopian.

You’re straining at gnats.

DRPrice on March 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I mean that a clear and unequivocal message, taught by Jesus Christ, seems to fall on deaf ears, unless and until a mere man provides that same message.

That’s what I mean.

And if it takes Billy Graham, Oswald Chambers, or, for that matter, Paul, to ferret out what Jesus Christ made explicit, then maybe you should attempt to figure out who it is, that you listen to … Jesus Christ … or Billy Graham, Oswald Chambers or, for that matter, Paul?

In addition, those you mentioned are necessary to bring the message of Christ to those who haven’t heard it. That’s different than a mere man becoming the proponent of a message, that was clearly expressed by Jesus Christ, Himself.

Who do you listen to?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM

The Church could sell off everything, but that money would only last so long. Remember, Jesus said, “the poor you will always have with you”. And it’s not only about treasure, it’s about talent, and time.

That’s not ALL it’s about; it’s also about potential sacrilege — much of the ‘treasure’ of the Church has transcendent religious value. Should they sell off sacred objects to rich liberals to buy with money stolen from taxpayers just because they also happen to be worth money? Bullcrap. Let self-important liberals make their own da*n art if they’re so much better than everybody else.

But then, we’ve seen what they come up with when they do, haven’t we?

Dirty Creature on March 15, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Who do you listen to?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I listen to God, OhEss, and I hear him speaking through many. I know my Scripture well enough to discern the spirits.

Romans 1:11-12
For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you — that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

1 Corinthians 14:3
On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.

GWB on March 15, 2013 at 3:10 PM

I don’t say these things to upbraid you

I do… Contrary to the common belief that no one is to judge anyone over anything, the Bible is pretty clear that believers have the right – not to mention the responsibility – to judge other believers. (It’s those outside the church who we’re not supposed to judge.)

I completely agree that OhEssYouCowboys’ condemnation of Lily was uncalled for, unthoughtful, and offensive. Lily was just stating that the election of the new Pope caused her to reflect on how he works out her faith, and concluded that she could do more than she was. Shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone; this side of Heaven we all come short of what Jesus expects – that darn sin nature, y’know.

Good for you, Lily – I hope more of us – even Protestants like me – take a moment to evaluate how well we live out what we say we believe.

And shame on you, OhEssYouCowboys – I think you owe Lily a huge, heartfelt apology.

psrch on March 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

He’s only been Pope for a few days.

Sheeesh…

workingclass artist on March 15, 2013 at 4:29 PM

And shame on you, OhEssYouCowboys – I think you owe Lily a huge, heartfelt apology.

psrch on March 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Matthew 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

[20] But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

[21] For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

[24] No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

[22] But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

[14] And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

[15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

If you need mere men to explain to you the clear, unadulterated teachings of Jesus Christ, supra, concerning the fallacy of allowing possessions to rule your life, then you should take heed of the teachings of Paul, concerning those who will be easily duped by mere men, instead of the clear, unadulterated teachings of Jesus Christ. For you are ready-made for the disinformation and lies of men, regarding the truth of Jesus Christ.

It is people like you, who prefer the teachings of men, upon which the “ministers of righteousness” will prey. Because you seek the wisdom of men, instead of the easily discernable teachings of Jesus Christ.

You can choose to follow men, instead of Jesus Christ – it’s just that simple. But, if you do, you are choosing men over Him, and it is you who will owe Jesus Christ a “huge, heartfelt apology,” because you have been duped and have strayed.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Two words.

Social Justice.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Shaming language used to justify confiscatory taxation. The commies can ram it up their nether regions.

squint on March 15, 2013 at 5:04 PM

To be exact, here’s the new pope’s quote

“He who doesn’t pray to God prays to the Devil,” the Pope added…

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Wow. Just… wow.

You slam Lily for daring to admit that she needs to continually evaluate her life and become less materialistic – precisely the point of the Scripture you mentioned – then you accuse me of materialism when I tell you that your critique was unfounded and ill-advised and commend Lily for doing exactly what you said she should do.

Again, just… wow.

psrch on March 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Wow. Just… wow.

You slam Lily for daring to admit that she needs to continually evaluate her life and become less materialistic – precisely the point of the Scripture you mentioned – then you accuse me of materialism when I tell you that your critique was unfounded and ill-advised and commend Lily for doing exactly what you said she should do.

Again, just… wow.

psrch on March 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Wow, just … wow. I didn’t “slam” Lily for desiring to become less materialistic. I questioned her and, apparently, you concerning who she and, apparently, you choose to listen to. If the quotes of Jesus Christ, supra, weren’t enough for her and, apparently, you to understand that one can’t make money or material things the focus of one’s life … then I am at a loss as to why and how the enunciations of the Pope, or of any other man, are necessary to bridge the doctrinal gap between Jesus Christ and her and, apparently, you. Wasn’t Jesus Christ clear enough on this issue? If He wasn’t, then I can only assume that He wasn’t clear enough when He said:

John 14:6 … I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

so that she and, apparently, you need Buddha, Confucious, or Mohammed to explain to you your need for them, instead of Jesus Christ, in order to find God.

It’s pretty clear that the meaning of my posts have flown by you, like a freight train in the night.

Once again, who do you listen to? Mere men, or the clear, unequivocal teachings of Jesus Christ?

Wow, just … wow.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 16, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Did not Jesus tell you these things, in the New Testament? It took the Pope for that to sink in?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah… no slam there

psrch on March 19, 2013 at 4:42 PM