Authored by William Robert Barber
I was born a Catholic. As a child, I experienced the “church’s” declared differing between good and the pretext of good. Such differing explained the difference between the Protestants and the Catholics. The Catholics were good. Convincingly, for priest and nun alike the devil’s evil influence was distinctively profound. Characteristically, only the ordained could interpret (for us common) which influence was of the devil and which was of man.
I did learn at a very young age the sanctity of Sister Maria’s word, the sacrosanct of Catholic rituals, and the inviolability of Father O’Neil’s teachings. A Catholic did not trifle, lie, pretend, or contest; a Catholic was a believer. For those of faith that strayed purposefully or by circumstance, guilt was the affliction at least until the next confession.
I also was informed that my divorced mother no longer received the blessings of the church. Telling me this before my first confession and subsequent communion does reek of Schadenfreude. Interestingly, at the time I did not know the meaning of divorce.
And no, the Pope’s visit and subsequent remarks, homilies, God inspired pontificates, and varying opinions do not change my thoughts on the merits of capitalism versus any other economic system or the buffoonery associated with ranking climate change as the premier concern of this nation.
Who could disagree? Yes, peace, justice, and equal access to material resources for all would be lovely, heartfelt, and Utopian. Such would validate kindness as an intrinsic human obligation. One could not argue with the scope of Pope Francis’ message; however, as the Pope would surely concede, the Catholic Church orders confession before communion for a reason: We humans are prodigious sinners and the outright evil 10% will always exist.
In economic terms, the descendant of Peter is an ill-informed observer, who espouses social justice as an obligatory tenet of society when in fact the concept is a marketing ploy of Marxist ideology. The Pope believes that wealth is there for distribution; however, unlike his namesake St. Francis of Assisi, this Pope talks the talk but does not walk the walk.
Imagine if the Pope could fashion the world as he heretofore has voiced. Let us start with the real estate value of the Vatican. Presently, the church pays no taxes. In fact, the taxpayers of Rome supplement its operational costs. The Vatican is primarily a tourist attraction that sponsors hundreds of entrepreneurs and indirectly employs hundreds of people. I assume, respective of the Pope’s insistence on the fair distribution of wealth, the Italian government inherits the real estate and leases it back to the Vatican with all profits along with the personnel wealth of the church divided equally, and distributed to the poor.
Of course the above is nonsense. The Vatican will never give up its riches and the poor, even in as rich a country as America, will always exist. The differing of “the poor” in relationship to the poor of yesteryear is how much stuff the poor of today inventories in relationship to the poor of past times. Within America and the Western World, the poor of today are yesterday’s middle class.
The Pope’s ideals and advice along with his breather of liberal progressive ideologues are unrealistic on the verge of silliness.