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.

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

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, in France, Urges Europe to Open Its Arms to Refugees!!

francis share wealth

Bergoglio: “We cannot allow the Mediterranean to become a vast cemetery!” “The boats landing daily on the shores of Europe are filled with men and women who need acceptance and assistance.”                        

STRASBOURG, France — Bearding Europe’s populist lion in its den on Tuesday, Pope Francis told the European Parliament, an elected assembly with many anti-immigration nationalist members, that Europe had become too “fearful and self-absorbed,” and that it needed to recover its confidence and give “acceptance and assistance” to people fleeing war and poverty.

But the pope also embraced one of the favorite themes of populist politicians who are hostile to the European Union. He warned that the 28-nation bloc faced “growing mistrust on the part of citizens toward institutions considered to be aloof, engaged in laying down rules perceived as insensitive to individual peoples, if not downright harmful.”

Public discontent with the European Union’s bureaucracy, widely seen as wasteful, elitist and self-serving, helped propel France’s far-right National Front party and several other once-fringe nationalist groups to strong gains in May elections for the European Parliament. In France, the National Front came ahead of all other parties.

Complaining that Europe had lost its vitality and often seemed “elderly and haggard,” the pope took a swipe at technocrats who seek to draw together Europe through rigid rules and regulations, warning that “the great ideas which once inspired Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions.”

The European Parliament, which meets in both this French city near the German border and the Belgian capital, Brussels, has become an emblem of the waste and detachment from ordinary people’s concerns that have drained support from the so-called European project, a half-century-long push for greater integration.

Francis, an Argentine who last year became the first non-European pope in more than a millennium, spent less than four hours in Strasbourg, the shortest foreign trip by a modern pope. After addressing the European Parliament, he spoke to the Council of Europe, a second European assembly based in Strasbourg with a palatial building, little authority and virtually no resonance with the general public.

The last time a pope addressed the European Parliament was in 1988, when Pope John Paul II faced heckling from Ian Paisley, a Protestant pastor and member of the assembly from Northern Ireland. Mr. Paisley accused the pope of being “the Antichrist,” and secularists denounced him over his insistent warnings that Europe faced ruin if it did not recover its Christian roots.

Pope Francis, by contrast, faced no such disruptions and instead stirred repeated rounds of applause from members of Parliament. He referred to Europe’s Christian past and the dangers of losing it but focused instead on current issues like poverty, immigration and joblessness.

John Thavis, an American writer on the Roman Catholic Church and author of “The Vatican Diaries,” said Pope Francis had a very different take on Europe than his two immediate predecessors, a Pole and a German, for whom “Europe was the center of the universe.”

Francis, he said, shared their concern about declining Christian faith among Europeans, but “his priorities do not include picking an ideological battle with secularists” as “he is more focused on the here and now.”

In his speech to the European Parliament, Francis received particularly loud applause with remarks that seemed to challenge a largely German-scripted economic policy rooted in austerity as the cure to Europe’s economic ills. “The time has come to promote policies which create employment, but above all, there is a need to restore dignity to labor by ensuring proper working conditions,” the pope said.

After his election as pontiff last year after the surprise retirement of Benedict XVI, Francis signaled his interest in the plight of the dispossessed by making his first trip outside Rome to the Italian island of Lampedusa, near where scores of immigrants have drowned while trying to reach Europe from Africa in flimsy boats. He denounced what he called the “globalization of indifference” to the suffering of immigrants and returned to the theme in Strasbourg.

Read more at the New York Times

‘The Gospels are not simply nice idyllic stories from the past, but terribly relevant calls to (amnesty) in the present!!’

 socialism 2

Bishop Seitz: We must heed our faith to help immigrant families, children

Catholic bishops pushing their socialist/communist agenda again…

Many today, when they look at public-policy issues, feel they need to separate out what their Judeo-Christian faith would tell them from what they would propose for public action. That should not be the approach for a person of faith.

Our religious faith enlightens us and gives us insight into the challenges we face in our world. Faith reminds us that in our daily lives, Providence is guiding our actions and grace is supplying what we by ourselves would be incapable of doing if it is in accord with God’s will.

The Gospels are not simply nice idyllic stories from the past, but terribly relevant calls to action in the present moment. The perspective of faith changes the way we evaluate every circumstance and every action.

Judeo-Christian faith has been a guiding light since our nation began. Other people of good will have been included as well.

The recognition found in the Declaration of Independence, particularly relevant as we celebrate the 238th anniversary of our independence as a nation this weekend, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights became the foundation for a new approach to governance.

Basic rights belong to people, not because they are given them by the largess of the government, but because they are woven within the fabric of our human nature by God.

This has implications not only for the way that governments treat its citizens, but for the way all people are treated no matter their origin.

The role of religion within society remains to call our nation to these higher things — to confront us with the teachings of the Scriptures and to serve as the conscience of our people as we face the moral dilemmas of our time.

I think it is for this reason that I have been called in the last couple of weeks to testify before two congressional committees on the challenges we are facing with the influx of minors and families from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Some have pointed out that we cannot help everyone who faces needs or deals with crises in their lives. That is true.

A careful reading of the Gospel reveals that we are to do what we can with the help of God for those whom we encounter.

Such is Jesus’ message regarding the man left bleeding and stripped of everything along the road between Jerusalem and Jericho.

The priest and the others pass him by because they think they have more important things to attend to. It is the Samaritan who stops and cleans the victim’s wounds, places him upon his own animal and takes him to a place where he can recuperate whom Jesus challenges us to emulate. (Luke 10: 29-37)

In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus paints a scene in which there is a man who lives in relative abundance who fails to even see, much less assist, a poor man lying at his door who is in great need and would gladly eat the scraps from the rich man’s table.

Jesus is saying in no uncertain terms that we will one day be judged based upon how we have responded to the person in need at our door.

Is it really a stretch to conclude that these desperate immigrants at our border are the Lazaruses of today? (Luke 16: 19-31)

I am proud of the generous and compassionate response of so many of the people of El Paso to this influx of children fleeing the deadly gang violence of their home countries.

To the rest of the nation we can rightly repeat the words of Jesus to the lawyer, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10: 28)

The Most Rev. Mark J. Seitz is bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso.

Pope Francis: Who pays the price for the corruption of a prelate?



Another Mass, another Social Justice Sermon!! Libera nos, Domine!!

(Vatican Radio) The poor are the ones who end up paying for the damage wrought by the corruption of the powerful, whose avidity leaves the poor without the things of which they have need and to which they have a right. This was the theme of the Holy Father’s remarks following the readings of the day at Mass in the chapel of the Casa Santa Marta residence. “The only way to [defeat] the sin of corruption,” he concluded, is “service” to others that purifies the heart.

 A “very sad” story  that, even if very old, is still a reflection of one of the most “handy” sins: corruption. Pope Francis reflections turned on the story, told in the readings of the day, of Naboth, the owner of a vineyard that had been in his family for generations. When King Ahab – meaning, explained Pope Francis, to “to widen his garden a bit,” – asks him to sell it, Naboth refuses because he does not intend to dispose of’ the “inheritance of his fathers.” The King took the rejection very badly, so his wife Jezebel weaves a trap with the help of false witnesses, and Naboth is dragged into court, convicted and stoned to death. In the end, Jezebel delivers the desired vineyard to her husband, who takes the land calmly, “as though nothing had happened.” Pope Francis said, “This story is continuously repeating itself,” among the ranks of those, who wield power, whether material, political or spiritual:

“In the newspapers we read many times: ‘Ah, that politician who got rich by magic has been brought into court. That business owner, who got rich by magic – that is, by exploiting his workers – has been dragged into court. We hear too much talk of a prelate who has become rich too, and left his pastoral duty to care for his power. So, the corrupt politicians, the corrupt businessmen and the corrupt clergy, are to be found everywhere – and we have to tell the truth: corruption is precisely the sin that the person with authority – whether political, economic or ecclesiastical – over others has most readily to hand. We are all tempted to corruption. It is a ‘handy’ sin, for, when one has authority, one feels powerful, one feels almost like God.”

Pope Francis went on to say that one becomes corrupt “along the way that looks out for number 1 [It- la strada della propria sicurezza],” with “well-being, money, then the power, vanity, pride – and from there, everything [becomes possible], even killing.” The Holy Father went on to ask, “who pays the price for corruption?” and answers that it is, in  fact, the poor who pay the price:

“If we talk of politically or economically corrupt people, who pays for [their corruption]? Pagano hospitals without medicine, the patients who did not receive care, the children without education. They are the modern Naboths, who pay the price for the corruption of the haughty. And who pays the price for the corruption of a prelate? The children pay, who cannot make the sign of the cross, who do not know the catechism, who are not cared-for. The sick who are not visited, the imprisoned, who receive no spiritual attention. The poor pay. Corruption is paid by the poor: the materially poor and the spiritually poor.”

Instead, says Pope Francis, “the only way to escape corruption, the only way to overcome the temptation to – the sin of – corruption, is service.” Because, he says, “corruption is pride, arrogance – and service humiliates you.” It is “humble charity to help others”:

“Today, we offer the Mass for them – many, many of them – who are paying the price for corruption, bearing the cost of the lives of the corrupt. These martyrs of political corruption, economic corruption, and ecclesiastical corruption. We pray for them. May the Lord bring us closer to them. Surely He was very close to Naboth, in the moment he was stoned to death, as He was to Stephen. May the Lord be close and give strength [to those bearing the burden of corruption], so that they might go forward with their witness.”




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

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.