Year of False Mercy: Bergoglio to Host a Sports Conference at the Vatican!

vatican-ii (1)

“Oh how I would like a poor church and a church for the poor,”  Francis-Bergoglio/ March 2013

First it was the satanic light show at the Vatican for the ‘Climate Change Hoax’ to kick off his year of False Mercy, now anti-pope Bergoglio will host a three day sports conference. Frankie the fake once again, shows the world his so called ‘Year of Mercy’ is all about promoting his false religion and has nothing to do with God!!

Bergoglio will “make sports a focus of his papacy’s third global initiative on education, following his efforts to highlight income disparity and climate change.”

The Vatican is reportedly getting a sports conference this year—and the world has Pope Francis to thank.

Dubbed “Sports at the Service of Humanity,” the three-day conference is slated to run in the fall and is being conceived with the help of two North American marketing firms, as first reported by the Sports Business Journal.

The conference will be invitation-only and is expected to focus on the relationship between sports and society, according to the publication. The event is Pope Francis’ third global initiative focusing on education. About 150 of the world’s top figures in sports, government and religion are expected to attend.

The Vatican has tapped Lang Marketing, which is based in Canada, to develop and run conference from Oct. 5 – 7.

Read the rest at Fortune

In other news 


Declaring it an “unparalleled high profile event,” the El Paso City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a set of plans for Pope Francis’ visit to neighboring Ciudad Juárez. The pope is expected to discuss immigration to the U.S. and poverty on both sides of the border.

Read more here.

A Victory for Bergoglio

liberation theology Oscar Romero (1)

Archbishop Oscar Romero (Communist sympathizer) is favored by Pope Francis. Pope said he was hoping for a swift beatification process. “For me Romero is a man of God,” the pontiff told journalists on the plane bringing him back from a trip to South Korea. “There are no doctrinal problems and it is very important that [the beatification] is done quickly!” – August 18, 2014

The assassinated Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero is at the final milestone of a tortuous road to sainthood with his beatification by the Roman Catholic Church on Saturday. The occasion has brought celebrations of the highest order in his native El Salvador. But the event calls for much wider rejoicing — for it reveals a victory over malign influences within the church and provides further evidence of the radical nature of the revolution Pope Francis is forging in Rome.

Archbishop Romero was shot and killed at the altar as he celebrated Mass in San Salvador in 1980. His assassin was from one of the death squads propping up an unholy alliance among rich landowners, the army and sections of the Catholic Church as the country moved toward civil war. The archbishop’s crime was to order soldiers to stop killing innocent civilians. The far-right elite saw him as an apologist for Marxist revolution — a defamation that highly placed individuals in the Vatican nurtured for three decades, and that Pope Francis has now finally squelched.

The chief concern of these critics was that his canonization would be an effective endorsement of liberation theology, which they feared would allow Communism to infiltrate Latin America. This was a willful caricature of the movement that maintained that the Gospels carried a “preferential option for the poor” and insisted that the church had a duty to work for the social and economic liberation of the downtrodden as well as their spiritual well-being. This misrepresentation reached its nadir in the gross calumnies perpetrated about the archbishop, both during his life and in the years since his death.

The oligarchy in El Salvador had hoped that Msgr. Romero would be a compliant prelate when he became archbishop of San Salvador. His background was conservative and his spirituality drew on that of Opus Dei, a deeply traditional group of priests and lay-people. But he became outraged by the growing violence against the poor and those who spoke up for them.

Within weeks of his installation one of his priests — a close friend, the Rev. Rutilio Grande — was murdered for supporting peasants campaigning for land reform and better wages. A succession of priests were killed thereafter, though by 1979 they were only a small proportion of the 3,000 people reportedly being murdered every month. When a reporter asked him what he did as archbishop, he replied: “I pick up bodies.”

As the violence worsened, Archbishop Romero became more outspoken in his nationally broadcast sermons, condemning the oppression and telling the people that God was with them.

Though Archbishop Romero was no liberation theoretician, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the chief advocate for his sainthood, has called him “a martyr of the church of the Second Vatican Council” because his decision to “live with the poor and defend them from oppression” flowed directly from the documents of Vatican II.

Nor was he a Marxist. In a 1978 sermon, he said: “A Marxist church would be not only self-destructive but senseless” because “Marxist materialism destroys the church’s transcendent meaning.”

But this was a world in which anyone who raised his voice for justice was branded a Communist.

El Salvador’s social, military and ecclesiastical elites were deeply unhappy with the archbishop. The 14 families who controlled the economy and who made big donations to the church sent a constant stream of complaints to Rome. They accused Archbishop Romero of meddling in politics, sanctioning terrorism and abandoning the church’s spiritual mission to save souls. Four bishops, alarmed that the archbishop was questioning their ties to the oligarchy, began to speak out virulently against him.

Archbishop Romero’s copious diaries give the lie to all their claims. So did the dossier he gave to Pope Paul VI in a private audience that ended with the pope urging him: “Courage! Take heart. You are the one in charge.”

Yet Archbishop Romero got a very different message when he was summoned to Rome by Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, head of the Congregation of Bishops. The cardinal said he had had a quite unprecedented volume of complaints regarding Archbishop Romero. The charge sheet was full of wild allegations and pernicious distortions, but Archbishop Romero was distressed by the fact that the cardinal clearly believed them. Again he went to the pope, who again urged him to “proceed with courage.”

But the next pope, John Paul II, had little knowledge of Central America and relied on the advice of curial officials hostile to the archbishop. Cardinal Baggio sent a Vatican inspector to El Salvador who recommended that he be stripped of his duties. Archbishop Romero appealed to John Paul, who told his critics to moderate their attitude toward the besieged prelate.

After his murder, his enemies began three decades of maneuvering to prevent him being officially declared a saint. A succession of blocking tactics was deployed, led by the man who had been given the role of championing Archbishop Romero’s cause, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, a Colombian deeply opposed to liberation theology. Years passed while Vatican officials scrutinized Archbishop Romero’s writings for doctrinal errors. When they found none, critics shifted to arguing that he was not killed for his faith but for his ancillary “political statements.”

Supporters of Archbishop Romero blamed conservative popes who were antagonistic to liberation theology, but that is unfair. In 1997, John Paul II bestowed upon Archbishop Romero the title of Servant of God and in 2003 told a group of Salvadoran bishops that he was a martyr. In 2007 Benedict XVI called him “a man of great Christian virtue.” He added: “That Romero as a person merits beatification, I have no doubt.” (This last sentence was strangely cut from the interview transcript placed on the Vatican website.) Just a month before he resigned, Pope Benedict gave orders that Archbishop Romero’s canonization process should be unblocked.

It was the arrival of Pope Francis — who promptly engineered a rapprochement between the Vatican and liberation theology — that finally brought action. Archbishop Romero’s cause, he told reporters, had been “blocked in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ‘for prudence.”’ But he added, “for me Romero is a man of God.”

Following that lead, the appropriate body of theologians universally declared that Archbishop Romero had not been killed for political reasons but had indeed died because of odium fidei — hatred of the faith. Francis promptly officially declared him a martyr, and the path to sainthood was opened.

For Francis this action was self-evident. He had said on his second full day as pope that he wanted “a poor church for the poor.” And he had written in his papal manifesto, Evangelii Gaudium: “We have to state, without mincing words, that there is an inseparable bond between our faith and the poor.”

The beatification of Oscar Romero is therefore a cause for double rejoicing. It honors a man whose love for justice and focus on the poor was a direct manifestation of his faith. But it also reveals that with the arrival of Pope Francis some of the dark forces that lurked inside the Vatican in recent decades have at last been vanquished.


Pope Francis Just Declared This Murdered Archbishop a Martyr. Reaganites Should Be Embarrassed?

Archbishop Oscar Romero 8

For me Romero is a man of God, but the process has to be followed, and the Lord too has to give his sign.” But there is no question where this pope’s sympathies lie. The leftist saints come marching in.

Reaganites Should Be Embarrassed. After all, a number of prominent Reaganites and religious leaders in the U.S. embraced the man responsible for Romero’s death!

(New Republic) – Pope Francis has declared Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was murdered while celebrating Mass in 1980, a martyr. Like much of what Francis has done and said since ascending the papal throne, the decision could anger American conservatives. After all, a number of prominent Reaganites and religious leaders in the U.S. embraced the man responsible for Romero’s death.

In 1979, moderate military officers overthrew El Salvador’s strongarm ruler Carlos Humberto Romero. The archbishop was initially supportive of the government before realizing that the military’s abuses and the persecution of the poor would not cease. Seen as a hero within Latin America’s liberation theology movement, which sought to align the Church with the poor and oppressed, Romero grew concerned after reading reports that the U.S. was planning to send support to the Salvadoran military. He wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter urging him to not intervene, arguing that U.S. aid, “rather than favoring greater justice and peace in El Salvador, will make injustice and repression against the organization of the people, who have been struggling for the respect of their most fundamental rights, even more acute.”

Romero was assassinated the following month. One week after his killing, the U.S. approved $5.7 million in emergency military aid, just as El Salvador’s bloody twelve-year civil war was getting underway.

The U.S. embassy had evidence that Roberto D’Aubuisson, an anti-Communist former army major whom Reaganites considered a Cold War ally, was behind the killing. The embassy handed this intelligence over the CIA, which kept it buried so that Congress would continue providing military aid to the El Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments. A U.N.-sponsored truth commission found in 1993 that D’Aubuisson “gave the order to assassinate the Archbishop and gave precise instructions to members of his security service, acting as a ‘death squad,’ to organize and supervise the assassination.”

It was eventually revealed by The New York Times that the Reagan administration knew more about the Salvadoran regime’s complicity and participation in atrocities than it had led Congress to believe. Soon after the truth commission published its findings, the Times reported that the “Reagan Administration withheld its own evidence of Mr. D’Aubuisson’s death squad activities from members of Congress who argued that Washington should have no dealings with terrorists.”

Suspicion that D’Aubuisson was involved in Romero’s death didn’t stop U.S. officials and other conservatives from praising him.

After D’Aubuisson entered politics in 1982, then-U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador Deane R. Hinton called D’Aubuisson a “fine young Democrat,” later declaring him “an intelligent man” and a “dynamic leader.” Senator Jesse Helms was an unabashed supporter, suggesting that D’Aubuission’s credentials as “free enterprise man” who was “deeply religious” weremore important than accusations that he murdered civilians. Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, told a congressional committee that the former army major was not an extremist because one would have to be “involved in murder” to earn that designation.

Members of the Religious Right also offered their support to D’Aubuisson in the 1980s. Pat Robertson claimed to have gone to dinner with D’Aubuisson, calling him a “very nice fellow.” D’Aubuisson was honored at a 1984 dinner at the Capitol Hill Club by a number of conservative groups, including the Moral Majority, the National Pro-Life Action Committee, and The Washington Times. He was presented a plaque for his “continuing efforts for freedom.” On another visit to Washington, D’Aubuisson was chaperoned around the city by Young Americans for Freedom.

One notable voice of dissent during this period was Robert E. White, the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador from 1980-1981, who passed away last month. While serving as ambassador, he denounced the Salvadoran government and right-wing death squads, famously calling D’Aubuisson a “pathological killer.” White was dismissed from his post, but that didn’t quiet him: In 1984, he accused the Reagan administration of attempting to cover up D’Aubuisson’s involvement in Romero’s murder.

Source: New Republic

Related: Is being Catholic a prerequisite for sainthood?!

Francis unblocks: No doctrinal obstacles to beatification of liberation theology hero, Oscar Romero

Pope Francis Honors Óscar Romero, Salvadoran Archbishop, as Martyr!

Archbishop Óscar Romero timeline

Archbishop Oscar Romero (Communist sympathizer) is favored by Pope Francis. Pope said he was hoping for a swift beatification process. “For me Romero is a man of God,” the pontiff told journalists on the plane bringing him back from a trip to South Korea. “There are no doctrinal problems and it is very important that [the beatification] is done quickly!” – August 18, 2014

ROME — Pope Francis has formally ratified the martyrdom of the Salvadoran archbishop Óscar Romero, who was shot to death at the altar as he was saying Mass in 1980 in an act of “hatred for the faith,” the Vatican said on Tuesday.

The step opens the way for Archbishop Romero to be beatified — a process that had been blocked under Francis’s predecessors, Vatican watchers say, because of the archbishop’s leftist political stances.

The archbishop, a man of the poor who often denounced social disparities, violence and repression in his own country and throughout Latin America, remains much beloved among Catholics in the region, and Francis, the first Latin American pope, has been outspoken in his appreciation of the archbishop.

At the beginning of the civil war in El Salvador, Archbishop Romero angered the country’s right-wing military government by calling on soldiers to disobey orders to murder political opponents. He also wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter pleading with him to cut off American military aid to El Salvador. The archbishop was killed by a right-wing death squad.

According to a 1993 United Nations commission, the murder was planned by former members of the security forces who had ties to Roberto D’Aubuisson, the former army major who founded the Nationalist Republican Alliance party, known as Arena. The party ruled El Salvador from 1989 until 2009.

The Vatican began considering Archbishop Romero for beatification in 1997, but his cause made little progress during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI because of his perceived association with liberation theology, Vatican watchers said. That movement, popular among some Catholic clergy in Latin America, called for the church to work for the social and economic liberation of the poor; some conservatives in the church rejected it as akin to communism.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family and the chief advocate for Archbishop Romero’s cause, acknowledged in a telephone interview on Tuesday that Archbishop Romero had been viewed by many over the years as a “bishop of the revolutionary left, of the Marxist culture.”

But “meticulous research erased all doubts and prejudices that many had within the church and in El Salvador,” Archbishop Paglia said, and “it was clear to us that killing a priest on the altar is a message for the whole church, a political message against a religious man.”

Archbishop Romero’s message stemmed directly from the Bible, he said, and “today Romero is an enormous help to Francis’s vision of the church — their voices sound like one, a poor church for the poor.”

Pope Francis unblocked Archbishop Romero’s cause in 2013, immediately after he succeeded Benedict, and he has spoken admiringly of the archbishop since then. In a general hearing in early January, Francis quoted one of Archbishop Romero’s last speeches, saying: “Giving life doesn’t only mean to be killed. Giving life, having the martyr’s spirit, means giving while doing our duty, in silence, in prayer, while we honestly fulfill our duty.”

Other Christian denominations have already honored Archbishop Romero; Lutherans celebrate him as a saint on the anniversary of his death, March 24, and Anglicans consider him a martyr.

Source: New York Times

The Dalai Lama, Pope Francis, and Ron Paul walk into a bar…

Dali Lama The Marxist... As far as socioeconomic theory, I am Marxist…

Dali Lama The Marxist – As far as socioeconomic theory, I am Marxist.

The Washington Times reports that while in India delivering his speech “A Human approach to World Peace,” the Dali Lama identified himself as a Marxist: “As far as socioeconomic theory, I am Marxist… In capitalist countries, there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor… In Marxism, there is emphasis on equal distribution… ”

Second, “the increasing gap between rich and poor” is more an inherent feature of Marxism (as manifested in its forms of socialism, fascism, and crony-capitalism), than it is free market capitalism. When the resources and means of production of a nation are controlled and redistributed by the state, the natural result is inequality. The case can be made that the western nations most commonly referred to as “capitalist” or “free market” are far from being free. Yes, there’s more relative freedom and capitalism in the west. But that freedom is undermined by Marxism.

Take the U.S. for example. The majority of the 10 Planks of Marxism have been apparent in the U.S. for over a century: a central bank (the Fed); progressive taxes; “free” state education; confiscation of property from the poor, expatriates, and the generally rebellious (civil forfeiture, eminent domain, FATCA); inheritance taxes; centralized transportation and communication; state-control of farming and manufacturing; and “equal” labor (“broken window” make-work jobs).

Marxist Comrades

Marxist Comrades

As opposed to Marxism, free market capitalism is characterized by voluntary cooperation. This leads to greater peace and prosperity for everyone. Furthermore, people who acquire wealth in the free market do so because they adequately supply the needs and demands of other people. Not because they are part of an elite, government-protected banker, political, or favored-industry class, as is the case with Marxism.

he Dali Lama’s political economy seems similar to that of Pope Francis. But the Pope denies he is Marxist. Some claim he is rather a Polanyan. I have no idea. To me, he reads more like the CEO of a large corporation bent on re-branding the company image. There’s indeed a lot of contradictions at play. This is not to diminish any of the good works the Pope has done for people in need, or for example, his tolerance of the gay and lesbian community (“Who am I to judge?”) or his assertion that there is no literal “hell” (although Marxism on earth has proved to be pretty close). I applaud the Pope for all of these, despite indications that he extends no such tolerance to conservatives. It is true that the Vatican’s talking points indeed echo those of the White House.

francis i am not a marxist

But really, it’s the Pope’s statements implying advocacy of government force over peaceful, voluntary cooperation that are so curious. The alarm bells should indeed sound for anyone concerned with liberty, or the words of Jesus. Perhaps most telling is the Pope’s perverse distortion of the story of Jesus and Zaccheus during a speech to the U.N. while calling for “political agents” to enforce the “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits.” Of course in the Bible, Zaccheus the greedy, wicked tax collector, touched by Jesus, chose to give back voluntarily from his own freewill. He was not forced to do so at the barrel of a government gun (this is important, read here). Surely the Pope understands the difference between force and freewill. Then, to what end?

Read more: Voices of Liberty

Pope Francis should stick to doctrine, stay away from economic ‘redistribution!!



Bergoglio and his modernist agenda…. 

Pope Francis should stick to doctrine, stay away from economic ‘redistribution’!!

Pope Francis has spent a year on the Throne of Peter. In that time, his modest style and high-minded ideals have ignited a new optimism and fervor among Roman Catholics, including those who left because of disagreements with some of its teachings.

Francis has gone out of his way to voice support for the world’s poorest citizens, rightly noting that their plight is too often ignored or brushed aside. Until this week, his statements have called for voluntary action by wealthier countries and individuals as the right way to relieve economic inequality. He appealed to our better selves, and in so doing, made us all ask if we could be kinder and more generous. The answer, of course, is yes.

On Friday, however, Francis chose a meeting with – of all people — officials of the United Nations to endorse what he called “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician.

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician. He also exposed his Church, one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, to inevitable charges of hypocrisy. And he put himself in a position of having to back up his frothy talk with ruinous action.

The pope is the head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ and is infallible on matters of doctrine.

When it comes to economics, however, Francis should stick to making suggestions for how to voluntarily reduce economic inequality and leave tax policy to the politicians. Perhaps he can help by offering a prayer for them. God knows, they need it.

Read more –

There is only one human dignity and that is Catholic dignity – Pope St. Pius X

Pope Francis: ‘Marxist Ideology Is Wrong, But I Know Many Marxist Who Are Good People’

From huffingtonpost

In a new interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Pope Francis responded to allegations that he is a Marxist, after he recently criticized ‘unfettered capitalism.’

The Pope told La Stampa that “Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended … there is nothing in the exhortation that cannot be found in the social doctrine of the church.”

He was referring to an apostolic exhortation from November, in which he wrote, “As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.”

Another passage read, “”Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”

The Pope’s words received harsh criticism from American conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, who told his audience that “”this is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope. Unfettered capitalism? That doesn’t exist anywhere. Unfettered capitalism is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States. Unfettered, unregulated.”

As well as addressing the controversy, Pope Francis shared with La Stampa his thoughts as he approaches his first Christmas as head of the Catholic Church:. “Christmas is God’s meeting with his people,” he said. “It is also a consolation, a mystery of consolation.. After the midnight mass I have often spent an hour or so alone in the chapel before celebrating the dawn mass. I felt a profound feeling of consolation and peace.” 

Read more:

Charity by Force: Jesus vs. Marx


It is fascinating that the recent debate over poverty, starring Rush Limbaugh and Pope Francis (maybe, translations subject to disagreement) reveals one central dispute: (a) compulsory “charity” by government force, on the left, versus (b) the freedom of each individual to voluntarily donate to charity and make one’s own decisions about his or her life, on the right.  Forget what either Rush or Francis said.  The raging debates that followed are most revealing.

Liberals have consistently abused Christian teaching to attack free enterprise and spread socialism.  These are not just Catholics, of course.  In fact, most — or all — of them are not really Christians at all, but rather only leftists hoping to fool enough Christians to tip the balance politically.

How can anyone give anything to the poor without earning money first?  Without capitalism, free enterprise, and markets, charity suffers.  Capitalism is the engine that makes giving to the poor possible.  In other words, liberals who wrap themselves in Christianity concoct a false choice, insisting that charity and capitalism are polar opposites.  Initially, should it matter what Jesus thinks about whether the United States should pursue liberal or conservative politics?  If citizens want their government to set up safety nets, can’t societies provide government charity for purely pragmatic, non-religious reasons?  Well, it depends, of course. 

 If discussing Christianity favors a liberal philosophy, then it counts.  If Christianity contradicts liberals, then it doesn’t count.  And how dare you mention it?  Jesus should be involved in American politics only if that helps advance a governmental agenda of bigger government, ever-expanding regulation, borrowing $17 trillion of national debt, and redistribution of wealth.

 Also, let us get one thing straight: at least Catholic Pope Francis is trying.  Bravo.  That’s much more than can be said for a lot of Protestant pop-culture celebrities. 

 But in public debate, it just happened to be Pope Francis who sparked a firestorm in November with an “Apostolic Exhortation” titled Evangelii Gaudium, which translates into “The Joy of the Gospel” or “The Joy of Evangelism.”  The Vatican generated further controversy through its translation into English.  Rush Limbaugh lit the fuse by sharply disagreeing with it.

 Of course, the first Pope, Peter, was a capitalist.  Peter and Andrew ran a fishing business.  Peter had investment capital — boats, which were expensive, and large nets.  They had to catch a lot of fish just to pay back their investment.  Peter’s and Andrew’s house was large and in wealthy Capernaum.  The Bible suggests that it was Peter’s house where a very large group stayed all together, even though Jesus could slip out unnoticed to pray.

 Jesus Christ was a carpenter — a capitalist, in actual practice.  Jesus’s father, Joseph, had a carpentry business.  As the firstborn, Jesus would have learned his father’s trade.  Wood was harder to come by for construction back then.  It was often a luxury imported from Lebanon.  So Jesus had to master great skill and own valuable tools to run his small but high-end business.

 But the controversy reveals a fascinating divide between left and right:  Jesus Christ teaches His followers to give to the poor.  But liberals see in this a call for forced redistribution of wealth — by government.  Christians must support a socialist government, which takes money from Person A by force and gives that money to Person B.  Every mention of the poor they portray as demanding government control of a nation’s economy.

 And let us be clear: we’re talking violence.  We’re talking SWAT teams from time to time storm tax protestors barricaded in their homes.  Violence, even death by police, backs up tax collection for the welfare state.  So does Jesus Christ endorse violence so that the government can take from Person A to give to Person B?

 Conservatives notice what liberals somehow cannot see: that Jesus is addressing the voluntary choices of individuals.  Christianity rests upon free will.  Capitalism rests upon free will.  God Himself does not force anyone to obey Him, follow Him, love Him, or serve Him.  When one town rejected Jesus in Luke 9, His followers wanted to punish the disobedient people by “calling down fire” — that is, praying for a repeat of Elijah’s spectacular miracle.  Jesus sharply rebuked them.

 Conservatives read all the same biblical scriptures and recognize that Jesus speaks to each individual on how to live.  Nothing in any teaching of Jesus supports the idea of government taking by force money or property from Person A to give it to Person B. 

 Yet no matter how many times the individual nature of Jesus’s teachings is pointed out, liberals cannot see it.  They regurgitate Bible verses about the poor as if that automatically supports government redistribution.  Consider the rich young ruler in Matthew 19.  A man asks Jesus what should he do to inherit eternal life.  The man describes how he has lived perfectly by the Law of Moses.

 “If you wish to be complete,” Jesus responds “follow me” — that is, leave his life behind and join Jesus’s group of traveling evangelists.  Jesus tells the rich man to sell all that he has and give everything to the poor. 

 But Jesus was tapping this man for religious leadership.  Jesus wasn’t saying this to everyone.  Jesus was on His final trip to Jerusalem to die.  Time was short.  Jesus was calling this man to an entirely different life, spreading the gospel under the persecution that would soon fall upon Christians after Jesus’s imminent crucifixion.

 But most relevant here, the rich young ruler refuses.  He says no.  So what happened?  Did Jesus’s church police attack him or arrest him or take his property by force?  No.  Did Jesus condemn him?  No.  Jesus once cursed a tree that withered and died.  Jesus told the man, “If you wish to be complete,” and the man did not wish to. 

 The disciples then debated with Jesus about the dangerous entanglement of wealth and sins of greed.  Jesus warns against the trap of wealth.  But Jesus ends up suggesting that the rich young ruler will nevertheless be in heaven, concluding, “All things are possible with God.”

 Liberal theology — both Protestant and Catholic — ends up being a call for dependence upon government, not God, to solve humanity’s problems.  Rather than trusting in evangelism to change the world one heart at a time, liberal Christians — from many denominations — believe that only government can save us.  Their trust is in government, not God.

 Liberal Christians recognize that society needs an institution calling people to give charity and care for the needy.  If only there were some institution that could teach people to care for one another, to love one’s neighbor as oneself, to use one’s time, resources, and abilities to benefit others…what institution could that be? 

A light bulb goes off: we need the government to do it! 

 Those lamenting the plight of the poor are describing the job of the church, the church universal.  Liberal Christians cry out for someone to do what they are supposed to be doing.

And again, at least Francis is trying.  The pope is sending the Vatican guard out into the streets of Rome to reach out to the homeless and poor.  That’s light-years ahead of others.