@Reesorville

Well I know what of you speak, and I try to be mindful of it. I am just not so sure ; it is correct in all circumstances and times.
I think of the many souls that are unaware of the danger that they are in due to ignorance. I consider that if they were better informed, they will not be a BLIND victim {am I my brothers keeper ? } lead by the BLIND or worse a WOLF in sheep's clothing.
Very hard today to know what to do in all circumstances.
Privately with those under my care, we speak plainly and honestly. This does not have to have malice, or what might appear up here as malice.
Sometimes the Truth can come across as an attack on someone viz. a religious. This is not always a truth. Some things need to be discussed, and if that draws in a Bishop etc...well caution {perhaps extra caution} and charity need to be exercised, but the conversation should not be avoided, just because it may {appear to convict a superior of a wrong doing}.

With all that said: Prayer and Penance are the preferred medicine of Heaven. This I know, and it is always good to be reminded of it. I thank you for doing so.

I am not sure I have been at this longer, and time is not always a judge of wisdom or prudence {wish it was though }

I wish you and your loved ones a Blessed and Merry Christmas also.
May God in His Great Mercy grant us the Grace of final perseverance.

Rhemes: For my part, I just want to make one more thing clear: I say we shouldn't attack them because of their position, and not because I think they are innocent. I am not blind to abuses nor do I think everything the pope or bishop does is right... my entire point is that there is a wrong method and a right method with dealing with it, and as far as I understand the teaching of the church and the example of the saints, this is not the correct method. The problems of the church are overcome by people faithfully following everything the church teaches, which includes the obligation to respect the office of the bishop even if the bishop is not good. Sin is often the attempt to reach a good goal through a method that is not correct.

Simply teaching everything the church teaches without failure to each other, reciting the examples of the saints, fervent prayer... I think these things will destroy heresy and apostasy in the church; not websites that post about scandals everyday.

In the Song of Songs there is a part that goes sort of like (maybe chapter 7 or 8?) 'if our sister is a wall, let us make battlements, if she is a door, let us use (some kind of wood) to make latches' - I read it and thought: the girl is not yet old enough to have breasts (hence she is a wall or a door), hence she is underage, and hence she needs protection from her brothers for those who would violate her(make battlements, make latches)- in the same way, men will protect the church (the bride) from those who would try to lead it away from Christ (her future husband, whom she is not married to yet because she is underage) into heresy, sin or apostasy.

This is also very important work, so I would to thank you so much for your anger over sin and desire to protect the bride of Christ. Do not think that this anger does not come from God. Do not give up, because your work is important: in my opinion, which is fallible and I assume is of fewer years experience than yours, it is just the method that needs re-evaluation.

God bless you and have a very holy Christmas!

@Reesorville

Thanks for the info.
Please know I am not suggesting throwing the labels around at all.
They are indeed very serious things.

I am sick in my stomach however watching so many souls leave the Catholic Church. because they are. {short list}
1) not been taught the Faith, or have been taught that all Christian religions are more or less the same....They leave {become Prots.} and no longer accept even what they were not taught.
2) Are so scandalized by the total departure from what the Church used to teach, that they just no longer go to Church, some of those even become atheists.
3) A Great many leave because of all the sexual misconduct that they witness go unchecked.
4) Watching sincere practicing Catholics {read Apostolic Dogma believing TLM} be persecuted for 40 plus years because they have difficulties attending the "on the spot banal creation" and they are also sick over the loss of souls.
5) meanwhile...........Heretic is NEVER a word said in Rome! unless they are going after Catholics attached to the Faith of their forefathers!

Meanwhile Faithful Catholics{like yourself} quote Canon Law to protect these people {that will never use the same law to declare each other a Heretic, and ONLY THE CHURCH HAS THE RIGHT TO DECLARE A HERETIC} Truly Rome themselves only apply Cannon Law to Catholics attached to the faith of their forefathers.

We are trapped...When the Previous Pope speaks of Wolves, and an Honest man has eyes to see.......You know I am not far from the truth here.

Lord come quickly please
Jesus Mercy
Holy Mary Mother of God : Pray for us
St John the Baptist; Pray for us

Canon law on the sentence of automatic excommunication for heresy and apostasy: Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

Canon law on publicly inciting animosities against bishops: Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

As naïve or foolish I may be, I still know what the Truth of the matter is. Call me anything you like, the Truth will still be the same.

In terms of the time period: If St Paul considered it wrong to speak against the Jewish High Priest, who was not mistakenly allowing abortion pills, but who was actively leading a persecution to destroy the church and anyone who believed in Jesus... if it was wrong then to speak against him because of his authority, how could it be right today to do so against a bishop?

I don't believe that previous times did not have bishops who did evil things. Simply gazing at church history and viewing things like: many bishops of the Middle Ages who bought their offices and then collected revenue while being continuously vacant, bishops of the inquisition who sanctioned use of torture against prisoners, bishops who supported massacres of jews or protestants, etc. All these things existed before the twentieth century, and yet Pius X still wrote that it is not the right of those below to judge a bishop's actions. If Pius X is a pope and we as catholics believe that the pope has an infallible teaching authority on what is moral and immoral, what we need for salvation, etc. then, really, I don't see how what I am saying can be logically refuted.

If your children eat at the table with their fingers you can speak harshly to them, but if your father does so, you may not- you can still ask him not to eat with fingers, but you can only do so with respect and politeness, because of the obligation of the fourth commandment.

What purpose is it serving when people broadly publicize whatever filth can be found around the bishops? The book of Sirach I think says that "your father's shame is no glory to you".

If they are doing these things, we can fight against it through different methods, we can pray, we can report them to higher authorities, if they commit crimes or are accessories to crimes, they can be reported to police... what, however, is being accomplished by telling the world and the people inside the church that the bishops do this? Are the bishops going to change from that? I think it rather damages the church even more, by creating scandal, causing division and hatreds to arise, and encouraging people to leave.

Furthermore, and this is very important to understand: If a bishop really is a modernist, a heretic, an apostate, etc. then he is automatically excommunicated, and therefore no longer a legitimate bishop. You are bound by conscience to avoid taking the sacraments from him or people who follow him into heresy, unless there is no other option available. And if you continue to take the sacraments from him rather than another option (assuming it is available) then you also commit sin. I don't know if any of the people on this site who use these labels so frequently really understand that.

'Modernist', 'heretic', 'apostasy', etc.... are not light labels. They cannot be just thrown around at anyone. If they really are true when applied to these people, then that means that they are no longer in the catholic church, and huge numbers of people are taking the sacraments from people who are no longer actually in the catholic church. If that is the case, then yes they no longer occupy the legitimate office, and you may criticize them.

God bless,

@Reesorville:

May I please enter the conversation? You write and ask {, can you locate a single example when he attacks a living bishop or group of living bishops explicitly by name, publicizing some wrongdoing of theirs and condemning them?}

I have not seen or read everything Bishop Fulton Sheen always taught and wrote, but for argument sake : I will concede to your point. He did not.

I don't think your point however carries your argument. NOW is NOT then.
When the good Bishop lived and spoke, I suspect the enemies of the Church were not openly accepted or openly active as they are now.

As writers in His day {even if outside the Church} could never imagine the destruction of the Traditional Latin Mass or a wholesale rejection of Traditional Catholic theology, neither could a Good Son of the Church be considering such a thing, and again even if it existed, they worked in the shadows, and not in the public eye.

Reesorville: That is not the case today. In Fact these are terrible times. We had a Pope step down literally right in the middle of tremendous upheaval in the Church Viz Sodomite underground . Restoration of TLM with Traditional orders, {and push back from bishops} the SSPX reunion . The Legionnaires, and rebellion all over the Church with the Bishops.

I hear constantly we must never criticize a religious be He a Priest a Bishop or the Pope {as we Romans call him}.. That my friend is a dangerous mis'applied loyalty.
We serve Truth and the Bride of Christ. We Honor the office and dignity of the Priest/Bishop/Pope. NOT THE MAN ....If the man is a monster Viz Modernist/Heretic/Sodomite/ someone that kills souls etc....You are duty bound to TRUTH to speak out....................and now that they do these things publically , we must call them out publically.

Stop buying into the silence bit, is service to the Bride of Christ.
My friend it is not.

I don't know what I can say which is of any use to convince you.

Convince me of buying into the neo-Catholic delusion that the pope is impeccable?
No, thanks. Mama didn't raise no fool.

I neither attacked nor condemned. It's not needed. I point out ambiguities, the failure to speak with knowledge (eg. economics and Muslim atrocities), the lack of teaching and correcting with respect to homosexual activity (“Who am I to judge'), the failure to lead his Church and to correct his German pro-abortion bishops and his lack of clarity in his pronouncements. This is easily accomplished by providing examples and by directly quoting the pope in his own words.

Your problem and others like you is that you are living in denial, in a world of illusions by falsely believing that this pope or any pope is impeccable and incapable of any error no matter what he says and no matter what subject he addresses. You believe that his judgments and decisions are always perfect along with his bishops which are the extension of his miraculous/divine attributes.

This belief of yours is self-deception, theologically indefensible and characteristic of a blinded neo-Catholic.

The truth is obviously painful to your preconceived notions of reality. Regardless, read this essay and either this book or this book. By not doing so, you condemn yourself to live life in a world of naiveté, illusion and lies.

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32

I don't know what I can say which is of any use to convince you. Maybe just one question, I can pose:

You quote Fulton Sheen as though he would have supported your position. Now, my question is: in all of Fulton Sheen's career in radio, television or other media, can you locate a single example when he attacks a living bishop or group of living bishops explicitly by name, publicizing some wrongdoing of theirs and condemning them?

God bless,

This is not your right to judge as a layperson.

Pointing out any man's public comments and criticizing those comments is not judging. Your comments, for example, are an illogical attempt to defend the indefensible. However, I did not judge you or call you an idiot, an imbecile, a half-wit or a brain washed moron for making such illogical comments. Try, as difficult as it may be for you, to understand the difference.

As I suspected, your posts are a perfect example of clericalism in which you attempt to defend the indefensible. The pope's views on Capitalism are flat out wrong but you are too deep into the ecclesiolatry approach that you are unable to admit that there are areas beyond the pope's competence.

Although there are numerous examples of this pope making bizarre statements, I will provide only two example. Quoting HH:

The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.

In other words, Francis is not offended at being identified with an ideology whose chief exports are oppression, torture, and murder, because there are some adherents who're pleasant about it.

And, of course, there's this little gem:
authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

Why doesn't the pope say such things to the Muslim butchers in Egypt who are slaughtering Christians daily. Do you thing His Holiness will do that?

Nearly every time he opens his mouth, it's like watching a train wreck. You know something bad is about to occur, you just don't know how many cars will run off the track.

Francis comments have been an embarrassment to Catholicism. Add to that the annoying excuse making (from the usual suspects) that invariable occurs after one of his public pronouncements. How many times must we hear “there is a mistake in translation” or “people misunderstand what the pope really meant” ?

None of this wouldn't be needed if he gave NO interviews and made NO public comments especially when they concern matters for which he has no training and no experience such as "trickle-down" economics.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful change and considerably more beneficial to the Church that he leads, if he would devote his time and energy in what he is mandated to do and that is to begin to heal and guide his beleaguered Catholic Church starting with disciplining his pro-abortion German bishops.

Instead, he seems to prefer kissing more babies and discussing “trickle-down” economics.

If he had managed to simply keep quiet on his plane trip back from Rio, we would not have had to endure the embarrassment of THIS. forcing the spinners (people like you) to do more spinning for the pope. Silentium est Aureum.

In closing, you ought to spend more time reading scripture and less time spinning for the pope on the internet. Indeed, if you had read scripture you would have known:
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment. John 7:24
I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 1 Corinthians 10:15
And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just? Luke 12:57

I've wasted too much time with you already. You seem to have an unlimited amount of time to waste on the internet which leads me to believe that you are a cleric yourself which also would explain the fact that you are in denial with respect to the ridiculous, biased and contrary to reality pronouncements of this pope. I am done with you.

Venerable Fulton Sheen:
Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious.

Uncle Joe, you were attacking the pope because you feel like he pays too much attention to one subject and not to another. This is not your right to judge as a layperson. St Pius X makes that clear.

With regard to the sex abuse, which we were not talking about originally:

This would be an extreme case, and you will note in the quote that I provided from St Pius X at the bottom it says:

'At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased'

In an extreme case, you can refer the entire case to the pope. And I would point out that the Vatican has also asked people to report serious crimes committed by bishops to the police. But you must do this with 'prudence and moderation', 'not clamooursly or abusively'

For example, you can report it to the pope and to the police, but you do not make a global scandal of it, publish it on websites, openly proclaim it so that everyone knows about it... because firstly, this is entirely unnecessary to punish the offender (the police will still arrest the person whether or not the case is famous) and secondly this is clearly breaking what St Pius X calls for in modesty and avoiding abuse or the creation of dissensions. It damages the church, in fact it drives people away from the church... what is the really the goal in publicizing it?

For the second issue of apostasy in bishops, this is very simple: if a bishop commits apostasy (actually if any catholic commits apostasy this is also true), then he is automatically excommunicated according to canon law and no longer a valid bishop; it doesn't need to be publicized or confirmed, because it is automatic. Therefore, if you know of a bishop who has committed apostasy, then he is no longer a valid bishop and therefore no longer protected by the same measure. Furthermore, you are then obligated by conscience to not take the sacraments from him or from any priest who follows him in his apostasy, unless there is no other reasonable way for you to get access to the sacraments.

That being said, I hardly think emphasizing one thing over thing can be called a proof of apostasy. Permitting abortion drugs in catholic hospitals is not apostasy either; the bishops at least think that it doesn't cause an abortion, and therefore they are still keeping catholic teaching in their own mind- it may be a mistake in judgment, but it is not 'apostasy'.

If you wish to speak out in the face of sin, you may do it to any and every person in society, but simply not to the bishops and popes. You can go to abortion clinics and protest them, you can stand on the street and tell people that masturbation leads to hell... and you would earn a lot of hatred from people, but you would be doing good work in saving souls. But you simply may not do this to those who carry Christ's authority, Christ Himself will punish them if they sin, you do not have the right to.

St John Chrysostom was the Patriarch of Constantinople, a Patriarch is the highest form of bishop underneath the pope, so he had a right to criticize any bishop he pleased, because they are lower than him in authority... but you or I do not.

Acts 23:1Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” 2At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”4Those who were standing near Paul said, “How dare you insult God’s high priest!” 5Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’”

When the High Priest strikes St Paul in Acts, St Paul responds by saying 'God strike you, you white-washed tomb' and then someone says 'is that how you speak to the High Priest' and St Paul does not respond by saying that it was OK to criticize the High Priest when he hits someone, but instead he says 'I did not know he was the high priest, for it says in the law 'you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people''

If St Paul considered it a sin to speak evil of the Jewish High priest, even when the High Priest was publicly persecuting the church, then how on Earth could it be alright to speak evil of our bishops and popes, who are even higher in authority than the Old Testament High Priesthood and who are not openly declaring war on those who believe in Jesus?

If it was still wrong even then to speak evil of the High Priest, then how could it be right to attack a bishop today who fails to deny communion to someone we think he ought to deny him too? Or any of the issues that get mentioned frequently on this website?

The devil always looks for where people are weak or lacking of something in order to supply them with an answer to this need of theirs which will seem to fulfill what they really need, but which will ultimately lead them in the wrong direction. People who are lacking faith in God, the devil tells them that life is short and that they should live for now without concern for others. People who are poor, the devil tells them the only solution is to have revolution and attack the rich to get their wealth. People who lack faith that God punishes sinners, the devil tells them that the only way for justice to happen is for them to take vengeance themselves.

The Laity fighting a war with the Clergy and dividing the church, comes from Satan, it is not from God; it is not the cure to the corruption and sacrilege in the church, it is rather just one more layer to it. People need to have faith that God punishes every cleric who sins, and that they do not need to carry out this justice themselves.

God bless,

Furthermore, with regard to your criticism that the pope is not focusing on more important issues. Whether or not this is true, we should recognize first that ordinary Catholics do not have the right to pass judgment on the actions of any bishop, including especially the pope.

Whether or not this is true???

You doubt the countless examples of a clownish liturgy and of heterodox bishops administering the morning-after pill in German Catholic hospitals and that the pope would rather kiss babies and speak of 'trickle down economics" rather than to address these crucial problems in his own Church?

You doubt that?

You should pay more attention to Catholic news.

You are so unwilling to use common sense and are so far into the pray, pay and obey mentality that you are unable to use the reason (although limited in some cases) that the Lord has provided to man. Don't you realize that NOT to speak out in the face of sin is equivalent to consenting to the sin yourself?

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. 32

But, using your own 'logic', even in the case of criminal activity or apostasy “ordinary Catholics do not have the right to pass judgment on the actions of any bishop” therefore, according to you, far be it for any “ordinary Catholic” to report those evil crimes committed during the previous decade against children as crimes since ordinary Catholics don't have that right. Yours is a stunning example of the lack of logic besides demonstrating a lack of a basic sense for what is right from what is wrong.

In actual fact, it is you and your associates who are the reason that the scandal continued unabated since the Catholic hierarchy, including Rome, was silent. It was only when States Attorneys and plaintiffs lawyers and news reporters began to make the scandal public that the crimes of the clergy were addressed. If it were up to the hierarchy and if it were up to you and people like you, Cardinal Law would still be the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston.

It is because you are so unwilling to seek the Truth, that you refuse to address liturgical abuse that occurs through the world and you refuse to acknowledge that there are bishops who are complicit in providing abortive drugs. Silence and a cowardly laity is the reason that the pompous, puffed up, princes of the Church continue with their scandalous abuses fearing no repercussions for their actions.

Indeed, it is you and people like you who have contributed by your silence to the sexual abuse scandals that have cost the Church over $3 billion dollars in money damages in the United States alone not counting the loss in moral authority and credibility that the Catholic Church once enjoyed.

Not only should these bishops who reassigned perverts be thrown into jail, but people like you should also be punished for their silence with respect to the commission of those crimes. Of course, you and your kind have little to fear in this life. However, the punishment due for your silence in the face of the loss of the faith among the episcopacy, will follow you into the next. People like you and your feigned naivety are disgusting.

St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church: "few bishops are saved and many priests are damned".

Venerable Fulton Sheen:
Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious.

Uncle Joe: Free markets have moral issues that connect to them, and the pope has an authority that comes from God to speak authoritatively to the entire church on moral issues. Therefore, yes, he can attack certain aspects in the free market when they are moral issues and when doing so he speaks with an authority that comes from God.

As stupid as my comments are, I should point out that these ideas do not come from me.

"41. Yet before proceeding to explain these matters, that principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.[27] Certainly the Church was not given the commission to guide men to an only fleeting and perishable happiness but to that which is eternal. Indeed" the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns"[28]; however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law. For as to these, the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.
42. Even though economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere, it is, nevertheless, an error to say that the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter." - Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

"16. We approach the subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us, for no practical solution of this question will be found apart from the intervention of religion and of the Church. It is We who are the chief guardian of religion and the chief dispenser of what pertains to the Church; and by keeping silence we would seem to neglect the duty incumbent on us. Doubtless, this most serious question demands the attention and the efforts of others besides ourselves - to wit, of the rulers of States, of employers of labor, of the wealthy, aye, of the working classes themselves, for whom We are pleading. But We affirm without hesitation that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the Church. It is the Church that insists, on the authority of the Gospel, upon those teachings whereby the conflict can be brought to an end, or rendered, at least, far less bitter; the Church uses her efforts not only to enlighten the mind, but to direct by her precepts the life and conduct of each and all; the Church improves and betters the condition of the working man by means of numerous organizations; does her best to enlist the services of all classes in discussing and endeavoring to further in the most practical way, the interests of the working classes; and considers that for this purpose recourse should be had, in due measure and degree, to the intervention of the law and of State authority. " - Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

Furthermore, with regard to your criticism that the pope is not focusing on more important issues. Whether or not this is true, we should recognize first that ordinary Catholics do not have the right to pass judgment on the actions of any bishop, including especially the pope. This is a teaching of St Pius X:

"On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals - that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased." - Pius X, Tribus Circiter

So, what is the point then in attacking the pope or any bishop in the church on grounds that they are not following church teaching, as seems to happen so many times on this website, when in fact to begin with the church teaches that ordinary laypeople have no right to pass judgment or rebuke their actions? Why are people on this website quoting so many papal encyclicals from Pius XII, or from the Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, etc. in order to accuse a bishop somewhere or the pope of breaking church teaching, when in fact we have above a papal encyclical telling us that we have no right to pass such judgment to begin with? If someone rejects what Pius X writes above, which is a papal encyclical, then I see no point then in quoting any encyclical from any pope at any time to accuse a bishop with, because obviously the accuser doesn't really care about the authority of an encyclical.

God bless,

the Pope has the authority given by Christ to speak on any moral issue whatsoever.

And he speaks with God's authority on that matter.

The pope attacking free markets is now on Divine authority?

There ought to be an award at this website for the dumbest comment of the day, week and month. You would win all 3 for sure.

The pope should logically start by cleaning up his own church but you 'the pope is impeccable types' don't care what he says. He's the pope and everything he says and everything he does is simply wonderful and free from errors.

In fact, he should be spending time healing his beleaguered Catholic church especially its worldwide circus like liturgy and its heterodox bishops rather than attacking free markets.

When will he address the major issues that affect the Church?

Will he have time in between kissing babies and writing 50,000 word, 84 page “apostolic exhortations” ?

And when will he openly condemn militant Islam (that routinely kills 100s even thousands of Christians/Catholics especially in Africa) rather than pandering to it?

And when will he discipline his renegade bishops (like this guy along with many more) who continue to embarrass the Church by ignoring Canon 915?

When will your dear Francis begin to do what he is mandated to do?

Economics can wait. There are MANY more urgent issues for him to address.

Has he got the courage? Haven't seen it yet if he does. So far, he prefers fawning publicity so he continues to kiss babies. Interesting that politicians do the same for the same reason.

------------------------------------------

In Francis' exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (paragraphs 252-253) he states that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

Reality does not confirm this statement.

The Koran is full of bellicose and hate-mongering verses against non-Muslims. Your Holiness will be able to find them if he reads the Koran, but I will name just a few:

2:191-193:
“And slay them wherever you come upon them, […] Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s.”
4:89:
“If they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33:
“This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, […]: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land.”
8:60:
“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
9:5:
“When the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”
9:29:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah.”
9:30:
“The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them.”
9:123:
“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4:
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”

Professor Wessell, I don't agree with your choice in terminology because as soon as you take the revolutionary, atheistic, class struggle, elimination of private property out of Marxism, then I don't think it should be called Marxism any longer, even 'marxish' or 'diaper marxist', because if you use that term it can leave many people thinking that there is some close relationship between what the pope is saying and what Marx is saying, when really it is very far apart.

Someone could perhaps just as well say that the kings and emperors of the Middle Ages who put controls on prices, who gave away their personal wealth to help the poor (and that wealth was often derived from taxes), etc. were also Marxists. When St Hedwig got her husband to support the poor? Or Elizabeth of Scotland? Or when St John Chrysostom implicitly called on the Eastern Roman Empress to stop buying things for herself and help the poor, perhaps he can also be called a kind of Marxist then?

In fact, that is exactly what the Communists who controlled the churches in the USSR and other countries wanted people to think! They wanted people to think that Jesus and the saints of past history would have supported communism.

So if you imply a connection between the two with this terminology, it also adds fuel to the arguments of Liberation theologians and communists who want to argue that Jesus and the doctrines of Christianity support them, when they really don't.

So I disagree with your choice in terminology. Marxism implies violence, atheism, revolution, abolition of private property, class struggle - if you (or Horowitz) talk about a new 'marxism' that has none of those things, I think it should use a different word to avoid confusion as though it had some relationship with real Marxism.
That being said, the Pope has the authority given by Christ to speak on any moral issue whatsoever. It can be relating to marital relations, human sexuality, war, politics, science and economics as well. There is no field which is not touched by moral issues surrounding it.

The Pope is speaking, not as an economic authority, but as a moral authority in this regard. He is telling people what is the moral and what is the immoral way for governments to act vis-à-vis the economic and social question. And he speaks with God's authority on that matter.

Can you find examples and paste them here in which the pope in Evangelii Gaudium is speaking about a technical question of economic science rather than a moral question within economics?

Reesorville, please read my evaluation or the pope as a "diaper marxist" or as "marxish". Your comments about Marxism only refer to the inner mechanisms of Marx's outdated theory in Kapital and elsewhere. This type of Marxism was deflated with the fall of the Soviet Union and metamorphized into an interventionist, state controlling and imposed welfare-ism along with critique of love of money (or of clerical positions in the Vatican??? or of bragging of one's humility in the international press) is the leftist version of hoard core Marxism now reduced to good vs evil imagery, projected by the Pope recently. I contend that the Pope does not have even a minimal understanding of "captialism", and you too!

What is capitalism? We need a standard. It is not enough to talk about business and wages or rich and poor. I ask the question: How do humans act to alter nature in a technological and economic manner according to reason. In other words, how is math applied to technology and to economics? What is the difference or is there any? If you can explain "human action" as praxelogical and catallatic behavior you can derive the categories necessary to understand economic activity and judge the nature of what happens economically, i.e., a standard model for "capitalism". To do this one must read Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action". This is out of the range of any papal statement qua morals. This has to do with the "science" of rational human action engaged in economic activity. I see no evidence, whatsoever, that Pope Francis has the slightest understanding of "capitalism", rather a biased, distorted and jingoistic mish-mash of shoutings of Latin Americans (I have spent time with the massive ignorance of economics there). South American "capitalism" (SIC!) evinces an interventionist policy into "capitalism" whereby gov./private persons (usually ex-communists) manipulate a "true" capitalist system in order to enact non-captialistic goals.

You have aduced the antiquated Marxism of Das Kapital which operative marxists such as Lenin sought to realize. The Pope is not a "Marxist" in this sense!!! Not in the least! But he is, to use Horowitz' term, a "diaper marxist'", that is he used all the cliches of Obama (and I cannot distinguish him significantly from Obama or the British Labor Party or the German SPD and Greens in Germany). I listed some features of this watered down Marxism below. Features that you have not touched upon, but affect people like Limbaugh (and me). Limbaugh chose the false category of "pure Marxism", but he did catch the progressive "Marxism" of the Left worldwide. The Pope is in my sense a "diaper Marxist". I accept Limbaugh only by revising the designational category, not the content itself as it rings true. Your defense touches a Marxism long gone in the West and fully misses its watered down form found even in papal mianderings, relative to which the Pope has no professional knowledge. He has not technical knowledge which, for instance, allows him to make judgments about the amount of money top CEOs make. I hear jealousy and Lat. Amer. jingo-ism.

Marxism preaches the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class and the replacement with the rule of the working class and the elimination of private property.

Does the pope support revolution? No
Does he support an end to capitalism? No
Does he support the elimination of private property? No
Does he want the classes to fight each other and for the workers to take full control? No

Therefore, he is not a Marxist. As a matter of fact, the Communist party of the USSR, Cuba, China or other such countries would have denied him membership simply on grounds that he was strongly religious (at least speaking of before 1990, I don't know about today).

The church, for more than a hundred years, has taught the moral duties and responsibilities of the different elements that make up society. Read Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Populorum Progressio, Centisimus Anno or even Caritas in Veritate... Francis is not pulling something out of nowhere, the church has long taught about the moral responsibilities in economic affairs. This includes the moral duty of the state to intervene to protect the rights of the weaker members of society. It is not an economic doctrine, it is a moral doctrine, and the pope has the authority of God to preach on it.

Pope Francis is a "diaper Marxist"! Horowitz created the turn. Horowitz came out of a communist family in America, was a prominent figure in pushing left to communist positions until he lost the "faith" in Marxism. He explains the evolution of Marxism in America after the collapsing and collapsed Soviet Union. Marxists ceased being "hard core" Marxists and became "diaper Marxists", i.e., they sought to influence society not as a tight party, but as "progressivs" (a term now used) and meged in a watered down fashion with party politics, particularly the Democratic Party. Obama and others too came from a communist past (Obama spent 10 years learning from Frank Davis, an American member of the Communist Party and is a living and breathing "diaper Marxist". The postive Liberalism of, say, Pres. JFK (whose tax reduction policy was quite "capitalistic" and against his Democratic party) has been replaced by the "progressive" ideology of, figuratively speaking, the sons and daugheters of the "diaper Marxists". The ideology of "diaper Marxism" evinices a series of conflicting binominals.

Capitalism: one vs many, few (1%ers) vs most (99%ers), wealth vs poor(er), welfare-ism vs individual responsibiltiy, gov. centralization vs limited gov. and all this leads to: gov. directed or manipulated economy vs free market economy (= capitalism).

In the sense of "diaper Marxism" as described briefly above, then I do conclude that Pope Francis (like Pres. Obama) is a Marxist of the diaper type.
Here Limbaugh is to a degree correct! However, "PURE Marxism" is a false categorization on the part of Limbaugh. If Limbaugh had left "pure" to the side and shouted that the Pope is preaching "a sort of left wing Marxism" he would have been more or less correct. But, then he would have lost the sting of his accusation.

Francis should endeavor to do what he is mandated to do and what desperately needs to be done and that is to heal the Catholic Church especially with respect to liturgical abuse that has spread throughout the world and heterodox bishops (particularly German bishops who administer the abortive morning-after pill in German Catholic hospitals). These things demand his attention yet they are hardly mentioned if at all. Instead, the pope lectures us on the joys of Keynesian economics over free markets.

In addition, since when did the Pope become an expert on economic theory? Was he trained in economics at the seminary? Did Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires run a profitable private sector business in Argentina?

The Pope offers NO solutions to any of the problems. He surely points out what he sees to be the problem: free markets. What do you have instead of free markets? Perhaps the Vatican can explain its “Third Way,” which is actually nothing but the socialism that has already failed Europe.

There are leftist anti-Capitalist Jesuits lurking somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican who are writing this garbage for him and he signs on. Religious would be well advised to stay out of economics and politics for which they have had no training and no experience. It just makes them look foolish and less credible. Point of fact, clerics do have some connection with politics. They permit pro-abortion/"pro-homo marriage" politicians to receive the Eucharist. Yet, Francis does not correct his own bishops but prefers to discuss economics.

The pope would do well to comment less on economic theory for which he has no training and no experience and give greater emphasis to abortion, homo-marriage, contraception and evil bishops.

The citizens of the United States of America in 2012 donated a total of $316 billion to charity. Catholic Charities USA distributed $4.7 billion. $316 billion donated to charity by the American people. Catholic Charities USA distributed $4.7 billion. The point is -- that's not to denigrate the church -- that is to illustrate as the Reason.com writer said, the pope's big cause is charity. Without capitalism, there wouldn't be any. Without capitalism, the Catholic Church wouldn't have any money to donate to anybody. Without capitalism, there wouldn't be enough people with enough money to give it to the Catholic Church in the form of donations itself.

How's that for trickle-down economics not helping the poor, Your Holiness? Are there any socialist countries, including your beloved Argentina, who have done and who have contributed so much for the poor and for the Catholic Church?

Part II
Pope Francis has, following his tendency towards emotionality, has written of a "belief instinct", allegedly built in, so to speak, into mankind by God. O.K, just what is Marx's "belief instinct"? In a love (sic) poem to his Jenny Marx wrote: "Similar to gods I dare roam, / March triumphantly through the realm of ruins (that he has caused in the existing world); Every word is flame and acting, My breast equal to the creator's bosom". Ah, the young Marx claimed parity with the divine as creator. This is a central theme running through Marxism. How was this "belief instinct" integrated into Marx's rational thinking? This is a long tale for which only a couple of words can be made here.

1. Marx searched about for a bearer of the claim to divine creativity. He found it in the class of the proletariat. The proletariat evinces many theological properties, the most important (and certainly most attractive to liberation theologians) of which is the fact that the proletariat is totally oppressed unto extinction by "capitalism". Because of this fact, the proletariat must revolt TOTALLY, i.e., annihilating existing capitalistic society leaving the oppressed common people free of oppression, free of classes and hence in communistic community (communitarianism). In said society mankind as a collective is his own self-creator.
2. Marx evolves a critique of capitalism (never, absolutely NEVER does Marx discuss the positive function of production and distribution as a positive economic problem >> Marx was a critic, but not a theorizer of economy) in which he seeks to show that an accumulation of capital in ever fewer hands leads to an AUGMENTIG impoverishment of the masses (this is a central thesis that floped by 1900) which of necessity leads to revolution. -- I will not discuss Marx's arugments other than to say that, right at the beginning Kapital Marx make a totally and outdated anylsis of economic exchange rendering his analysis as useless on a systematic level.
3. Marx predicted a spontaneously revolutionary consciousness evolving from his critical anylsis ending it absolute overthrow. BUT, by 1900 the proletariat had become richer, integrated, receive some social aid and was NOT revolutonary. What to do? A theoretical crisis. Enter Lenin!
4. Lenin claimed that European colonialism had robbed the 3rd world to bribe off the European workers. This explains one theoretical error in Marx. There is a second theoretical error. Lenin claims that the proletarian of itself can never evolve spontaneously a revolutonary consciousness. Only those few who know and cooperate as a vanguard party possess the knowledge of how operatively to overthrow capitalism. The Communist Party is the head of the proletarian body (again a theme dear to liberation theologians who possess the knowledge).
5. I have, however briefly, brought my theme in Part II to the morality announced in Part I. I will not continue on.

It is clear that the Pope does not exemplify an operative Marxist belief, though his views of history touch a clear utopian streak. So, if Leninism is "pure Marxism" as Limbaugh has asserted of the Pope, Limbaugh has made a mistake. But, then Limbaugh's knowledge of the inner "belief instinct" or Marxism is absent, just as it is so with the Pope. There are, however, weaker forms of Marxism (Horowitz' "diaper marxism") which can be predicated of the Pope as of Obama. Tomorrow, time and health permitting I will take up the subject of "diaper marxism". It suffices to note that the Pope's critique entails a waterdowned version of Marxistic criticism of capitalism. I believe that the Pope is not marxistic, rather marxish (my terminological invention).

Further comment will have to await another day.

Part I
Having published two books on the evolution of Marx's Marxism from his early poems to his Kapital and having lectured on the development of Marxism through the 19th Century and its dynamic modification by Lenin (I will leave aside the "cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School, which has, alas, conquered the West) and its post Soviet collapse "diaper Marxists" (term from David Horowitz), I venture the claim that I can say something about "Marxism(S)", though chopped to a tiny chip below.

Let me first establish the central moral of all operatively active Marxisms, including the per se not so morally nice Marxists (what the heck, Göring was well known as a jolly guy, the smiling Nazi with whom it is fun to drink beer). Niceness is absolutely NO critierium for evaluating an aggressive -ism, which is a foolish mistake of the "embrace-them-all" Pope Fr. He simply cannot judge objectivity correctly, influenced as he is by emotions. Let us examine the moral of morals.

Bertolt Brecht, a dramatic genius, nice guy and a Marxist (one quite loyal to Lenin at one point) wrote a play called "The Measures Taken" in which the Moscow true communists (affirmed by Brecht) chant: "Sink down into the muck / Embrace the butcher, but / Change the world: it needs it". Into what the world is to be changed, I will leave untold other than it is a centralized government caring for all that metamorphizes into a classless society. (Other than the utopian elements of communism, Marx did not once in his life ever discuss the economics of producing the goods of said society or of any society. In that most liberal Catholics concur.)

This "fundamental change" ideal of highly successful Soviet party Marxism with its derivative moral of embracing the butcher is a function of a solely economic interpretation of mankind that finds solution in anarchic collectivism. There is no transcendent dimension (God or Natural Law) that limits morally the means as the means are justified by their contribution to success. Hence, the "butcher" is called for, if need be. Any activity grounded in any form of operative Marxism is de potentia open to the vilest of actions, if need be. This is an INTRINSIC moral principle that constitutes an operative marxist and is fully independent of any "nice guy" or "good personality" of the operative Marxist and constitutes a temptation for the theological liberationist. The Pope is certainly not of such an operative type at all!!! But, the, oh, so foolish and ignorant Pope, does not understand the operative dynamics of bringing Marxism about. Even liberation theologians too interpret the human condition as a function of Marxian analysis with a cherry on top of religion. The Pope's not being offended shows that he does not, willy or nilly, grasp the "belief instinct" of Marxism and its theoretical nature.

What is the origin in Marx of the operative principle? I do not hold that Marx was so advanced as Lenin, indeed, Lenin would have eliminated Marx as a bourgeois intellectual. But, the egotist, yet brilliant Marx stated his life long task in a youthful poem to his bride to be.

Because revealing more on the source and development of Marx's Marxism I will end here and suggest Part II (presuming that I have the energy today).