Please Pope, We Capitalists Prefer You Not Discuss Social Justice.

If ever there was a moment when the Catholic church reflects the business model of the entire Christian religion, it is now.

The Church is about what people think it is about.  What ordinary people talk about and their impressions of right and wrong are what the church actually stands for.  This may be different from Church documents, but those in the pews pay the bills.

Pope Francis is trying to right a listing ship.  People have been talking only about gays and abortion for so long they do not know their church teaches about other things.

The link explains the Catholic Church actually has been preoccupied with social justice for a long time.  The previous Popes talked about it, just as Pope Francis is doing.

Pope Benedict had the personality of a judgemental moralist, and the media characterized him as a judgementalist on abortion and gays.  Pope Francis, on the other hand, has a different personality and a different picture is being painted of him.

This new picture disturbs many prominent Catholics.  They like the picture of a Pope who is bashing gays and abortion but not talking about social justice.

Larry Kudlo, a devout Catholic who has a business commentary show on cable TV, is appalled this Pope brings up any topic that falls under economics.  Abortion and gays are the only appropriate topics.

The social justice cat has escaped from the Catholic bag before, only to be put back by those who feel threatened by it.

37 Responses

  1. H.P.Drifter

    In all my travels I never seen a Catholic let religious ethics stop them from making money. Except somehow they if find a Jew in their way (he is quickly paid off) The Catholics are easily the most ruthless group on earth, the only real rival they have are the Chinese.

    You want to find sweat shops which are smaller and more dangerous, look no further than your Catholic countries.

    Corruption and Corruptive practices are the norm, lip service to the church is just that, the unions have a hell of a time existing in Catholic Countries and have to fight for any thing they get.

    Wonder way the Pentecostal Churches are gaining strength in Latin America is because Catholic corruptive practices have flourished side by side with governmental corruption since time in memorial.

    Being indignant is just a front believe me, a little more money in the churches coffers and all this controversy will go away over night.
    Never met a honest Catholic businessman (I know they do exist somewhere, not like god)


  2. H.P.Drifter

    Now I get why the Pope has a social agenda after reading some, not all of the posts of the link below. The Pope the smart man wants the Capitalists to pony up and help pay for the social injustice awards against the Catholic Church, what better why to pay than blackmail them into financing the churches life style clever idea. Got to hand it to those Catholics they are not stupid (make the Chinese proud). What”s the saying “Birds of a feather flock together” I hope you are you are enjoying your bacon and eggs this morning C.D.


  3. H.P.Drifter

    Fellow Free Thinkers

    All you free thinkers sleeping in, how are we suppose to get ahead, if you keep these Christian traditions. You realize there are millions of catholics out getting their heads cleared out of guilt and sin at this very moment, Then there are still even more Catholic sleeping in trying to increase their numbers. There should be a minimum wage for free thinkers to think. Were talking about our chance of World domination here. You guys are about as easy to organize as the African countries when it comes to feeding them selves. Wake up and start posting.

    Good Morning


  4. Brad

    The problem with the Pope is that he is actually following Jesus’ message about the poor and about economics, rather than just cherry pick the versus that support the right wing ideology. Rush Limbaugh calls him a “Marxist”, which is no surprise, but he is also calling Jesus a Marxist as well, because that’s where the Pope’s philosophy is coming directly from.

    1. Brad 3:17 “The problem with the Pope is that he is actually following Jesus’ message about the poor and about economics, rather than just cherry pick…”

      You are correct the quotes attributed to Jesus had a lot about the poor.

      Of course, as you well know, we don’t really know what Jesus said because no one who wrote about what he said was present when he was supposed to have said it. What those authors claimed Jesus said was a lot about the poor and nothing about gays or abortion. To remain popular, the Pope needs to pretend Jesus crys when he sees gay marriage and abortion.

      1. eric haugen

        “Of course, as you well know, we don’t really know what Jesus said because no one who wrote about what he said was present when he was supposed to have said it.”

        This is your conclusion but not necessarily factually agreed upon. We have better documentation of the Greek new testament than any other book of antiquity. The original manuscripts (which we do not have) were generally written by about AD 90. The earliest fragment we have is from AD 125. Almost all of the new testament is preserved in documents from the second century. We have over 5700 Greek manuscripts and 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. With this evidence it can be conclusively determined what the original documents said. This is objective manuscript analysis that has withstood the test of time. If it had not we would not be having this debate.

        Let us put Bart Ehrmans oft quoted book in context. Within the thousands of documents supporting the new testament there are about 350,000 variants discovered. About 65% are spelling errors. 25% involve synonyms which do not influence translation. 5-7% of the variations do influence the meaning but have been clearly shown to not be a part of the original manuscript. 1% of the variation influence meaning and are likely original. None of these variations cast major doubt over the Christian faith. None of these are “fatal flaws”. The bible is a very human book with multiple genres and cultural influences influencing its writings. For those of us who are believers we also believe it is inspired by God. We actually can know what Jesus said. The evidence is strong. You have concluded differently but it is academically erroneous to conclude that the evidence is not there.

        1. eric 6:04 Several times a month, someone mentions how many other ancient books there are and how only the Bible is looked at with such skepticism. May I remind you only the Bible is considered, as you state, “the word of God.” If it is the word of God, it seems logical we would want to know exactly what that word is. Conversely, we would want to know is a little or a great deal of the Bible, instead, the word of unknown men.

          “Let us put Bart Ehrman’ oft quoted book in context.” (Erhman has written not one but several books.)

          The percentages you quote have little to do with the case made by Ehrman and many other scholars like him. The important question is, were there significant differences expressed in the different books of the Bible and between the various copies that were copied over time? Erhman and other conclude there were significant changes. Perhaps there we can differ on the meaning of “significant”. If there were any changes, but certainly if there were significant changes, a rational person would conclude the Bible is the work of man.

          If you are interested in learning what he considers significant, it would be productive to read one or two of his books. I’ll just pose one question raised by many New Testiment scholars that involves who or what Jesus was. Was he devine before he was born, made devine when he was born or did he become devine during his life? There are conflicting views expressed in the Bible itself. The story changed over copies and recopying. My conclusion is that is we do not know which of these Jesus was, how can we conclude he was divine at all?

          Maybe you have a clear idea of this that does not conflict with anything in the Bible.

        2. entech

          Eric, I assume that you mean that not everyone agrees that it is a fact that:
          Jesus never wrote anything himself, and that,
          None of the authors of the gospels heard him speak the words attributed to him.
          It is probably true that not everyone, both professional scholar and keen amateur, would agree but I do think that the general consensus is that this is fact.

          In what way do you have better documentation of the Greek new Testament than any other book of the period? To be accurate there were a lot of books not just one, and many more that did not suit the required theology of the dominant group the so called apocrypha. To my mind most of that included should be considered apocryphal.
          The main documentation for the set of books are the books themselves or books written by followers mainly for the purpose saying why others were wrong and heretical. Books with titles something like “Against all heresy” or similar, I contend that books written to oppose one view and counter another are not good sources for the validity of the dominant view. Even at the time they were not necessarily agreed on as fact. If they were accepted as fact there would be no opposition, no heresy, no need to write.
          That there are so many “copies” of documents there is a good chance that in spite of errors and interpolations during the copying a fairly reasonable and accurate idea of what the originals had to say can be produced. This does not mean that the originals were an accurate and factual account of the life of Yeshua, most of the rest probably gives a pretty accurate picture of Paul and all the others, the ones that were busily changing a Jewish cult into a new and different religion, a change that brings the Jewish Yeshua to the Greek Jesus Christ, two different entities and two different Gods..

  5. Brad

    “This new picture disturbs many prominent Catholics. They like the picture of a Pope who is bashing gays and abortion but not talking about social justice.”

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I can very easily see this new Pope getting ousted. Maybe they will rig some sort of scandal that forces him to step down.

      1. H.P.Drifter

        Who needs work, Bill Clinton (no he is now a vegan) George Bush (no he is on special diet) Cheney (no he is on special diet as well) Michael (no he is to much fun) Wanna be (no they probably let him inside with the thirty odd six and there is the question of not knowing what he might do) Hard to make up my mind


        1. Wanna B Sure

          Seriously? Me a food taster for the Pope? You should know more before you speak so stupidly. In the past you made a veiled threat against anyone caught between your pen and paper. Your own tongue is in that very place between pen and paper. There is a saying: “Let a man speak long enough, and he will prove even to himself to be a fool”.

          1. H.P.Drifter

            Sorry Wanna Be, thought you were a member of the Missouri Synod, didn’t realize you were on the other side. But I did figure if I could you and Martin inside past the Swiss Guards, there would be no need for a taster for anyone.

            Just kidding now, relax don’t want you to have a heart attack


        2. Wanna B Sure

          You should also be aware that I have been gone for a couple days, and haven’t been a part of this discussion, or your ramblings.

        3. Wanna B Sure

          I see you haven’t changed. You keep posting even if I’m not here. Not so peace full after all. You don’t need an excuse. Just a podium.

          1. entech

            Now that must be a blow, to think that things could go on without the benefit of your … knowledge, wisdom, superior insight however you like to think of it.

            I thought the thing about being a food taster for the Pope was a good joke, being a close follower of and apologist for the good Martin you would be part of the problem rather than a solution.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            I wish no poisoning on anyone. So you think it is funny to poison someone. Feel free to volunteer for the job. Enjoy.

          3. entech

            My where have you been that makes you so grumpy on return.
            I concede that my remarks were badly expressed, it was merely that a fan of Luther would be likely to volunteer for a job as protector is not likely, of course, as a good tolerant Christian you would not want to cause harm. At the same time, a volunteer for the “Swiss Guard” is unlikely. (Age and nationality being prohibitive not withstanding)

    1. Catholic Dad

      I have a feeling I know where Pope Francis is going – this is just pure speculation on my part. Pope Francis is trying to show us all; that if you are a Christian – you need to be 100% committed to your faith. It does not mean that only on Sunday; it means both at work, home, and recreation. I predict soon Pope Francis is going to tell politicians, if you are Christian, you practice your faith there as well, especially when legislating. That will set off major fireworks with the press, and especially the free thinkers.

      That should make HPD happy, as I understand his posts, Christians are all hypocrites, and don’t live the faith 24/7.

      As you would expect, I would be more than happy to be his food tester.


      1. entech

        Being a confirmed secularist I would certainly hope that they should not bring their religion into the parliament, they are there to represent all not just a few. Australia has a problem with the current Prime Minister being a close confidant of Cardinal Pell, Australia’s own Inquisitor General. Along with others trying to impose a religious interpretation on everything.
        In a Democracy or Republic the voice of the people should be more important than the voice of God especially when what we of of the voice of God is what is whispered into the ear of the politician in that never never land between awake and asleep.

        1. Catholic Dad

          “they are there to represent all not just a few”

          Does that mean popular opinion is the rule of the day? I’m am concerned more with your premise than any particular issue. I would think we would both agree, governing this way, is not in the best interest.
          As public opinion can be swayed, even, if it is not in the best interest of man.

          From the land of hindsight

          1. entech

            Should have been more explicit, in the best interest of the many.
            How to determine the best interest is something I have been thinking about for years, can’t see it being in a controlled economy or in a totally free market economy as advocated by some of your so called libertarians, give control without control to a monopoly (singular or joined with a common interest) and it would not be long before you could not tell the difference from them and the commissars that you dread so much. If Walmart says you wear a red dress you wear a red dress because that will be all they stock and sell.

            I would be looking in the discretion of JSMill or the Adam Smith from Glasgow not the Chicago interpretation.

      2. H.P.Drifter

        If you can get the Pope to Clean up Latin America.
        Then you me, the pope and JC, will have dinner, I will buy


    2. I think it’s certainly true that a number of prominent Catholics are disturbed by this Pope’s changes in emphasis but I also think that there are many Catholics and ex-Catholics who are taking a degree of encouragement from it.

      Especially in North America, the church has been very out of step with it’s membership for quite some time on social issues. The increased emphasis on social and economic justice and a little less of the hell fire and brimstone on women’s issues (though no policy changes) should be quite welcome to much of the lay community.

      1. Wolfy32

        The respect I’ll develop for any pope is the one that brings reality back to it’s church leaders. All bishops, cardinals, priests, (I’m not familiar with the catholic heierarchy), are human… Therefore are no different than the rest of us…

        Allow them to be open about their sexuality – e.g. allow them to marry. Gay or hetero, who cares. No ONE cares if the leadership is allowed to marry. Allow them to be in love, marry, and have their needs met.. Just maybe some of the child abuses would decrease!!!!

        Allow your staff to be human!!! To expect them to be something they will never be (anything but human).. Well, is just setting themselves up for failure. Allow them to marry, and allow them to be human… Then let’s do some new statistics on abuses of children!!!

        1. Catholic Dad

          I had the married priest conversation just yesterday with a Priest. His opinion is it is not the priests that are asking to get married it is laity that want this to happen.

          Also any abused child is one to many – I am not making justification for a abusing a child or excusing the church. However, the Catholic church is being singled out on abuse – if you look at the statistics – Protestant churches have a higher abuse rate than Catholic Church, public education has more abusers than the Protestant church, and family members are the biggest abusers.


          1. Wolfy32

            I agree. I’ve posted here too as child abuse has been used to target churches. And the statistics are daunting. The ratios of family abuse of children vs. public school vs. church. There’s no doubt that families need to be targeted for responsible caring for children. A year ago I met a lady that had just put her BF of 6 years in prison (both in their early 40s) She discovered her BF of 6 years had molested her then 12 year old and 10 year old daughters for 2 years prior to that without her finding out. So betweent he ages of 8 and 10..

            She was lucky she could put him prison, many abusers go undiscovered or with it all covered up.

            I do agree, the church has an unfair bullseye. However, since this is about changes from the top down. Why not at least make things simpler by making all the staff normal. Lol.

            I guess, in some ways, they get a get out of jail free card for not having to be married… Heh. In that way, they are kinda lucky. Go their whole lives without having to be married! ha! Hmm… Maybe I should join, I didn’t realize how good a perk that was! ROFL.

          2. Just because some other deviant is doing to too isn’t an excuse for the church.

            No matter where that kind of nastiness occurs it should be rooted out and prosecuted.

            Also, the cover up! These organizations tout themselves in their communities as a refuge, a safe haven, a helping hand while harboring people who actively preyed on the most vulnerable around them. People they were supposed to be helping. People they told the world they were there to assist.

          3. C. Dad 5:36 “…if you look at statistics, Protestant churches have a higher abuse rate than the Catholic church, public education has….”

            I’ve no reason to doubt this. But, wouldn’t you agree there is a difference in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church did not reveal the abusers were present, did not notify law enforcement and thus endangered the public more than those others areas where it happened?

            I think the “business model” of the Catholic Church is its greatest problem. That its theology dictates its organizational structure leads to unaccountability. If there were a lay board which had the power over the Pope and everyone else, I’m guessing there would have been less abuse.

          4. entech

            The problem always comes back to the evasions and coverups. The problem is not diminished by spreading the blame, the fact that others do it is no excuse. A recently completed “Royal Commission” (roughly a judicial inquiry)has seen all churches and many secular institutions come under scathing criticism.
            Most groups have been very apologetic and admit to cover up to some degree. The Catholic response to the treatment of victims has come under extreme criticism, it has shown that they spent more on the defense of paedophile priests than they did on compensation and counseling with legal binding non disclosure restrictions on the victims, they have been known to spend a lot of money on defense and appeals on priest that have already been jailed and are up on a second lot of charges.

            The general response is that “we are better now” no admittance, just a wishy washy we will try harder. There was shock in the court and disgust from the general public when the local archbishop when asked why it had taken so many years before a known offender was reported answered, “better late then never”. A clear example from this flippancy that they still don’t treat it seriously.

Comments are closed.