Not the only ones who’ve noticed…
Pope Francis is on another of his political jaunts across the world, having just met with the murderous leader of Iran with photos showing the two men in friendly, cordial laughter.
One wonders what they talked about in private and who is on whose side.Given Iran’s threat to the free world, its treatment of Christians and members of other religions and general human rights abuses, one also wonders what the purpose of it all was.
I hesitate to think it might be just to add to Francis’ resume as a perceived “man of peace.”
Our buddy Steve writes:
“I wish he would stop this. I wish he would tell people that respecting national sovereignty is virtuous, and that legal emigration is the path to true citizenship, which strengthens nations rather than breaking them down. And I wonder why these families of the missing are being ignored, their stories slipping through the cracks. Aren’t they the poor and the marginalized, too? Aren’t they the people on the peripheries?”
I don’t know, but I am wondering which of his habits are more irritating: his base, materialistic political obsessions; his consistent SJW, 14 year-old-girl, Buzzfeed-informed take on the issues; or the whole Papa Banderuola 24-hour Pope Francis Rule: “Don’t like something the pope has said? Wait 24 hours. He’ll say exactly the opposite tomorrow.”
I don’t really have a personal horse in the US Mexican migrant issue, but the principle at stake is important universally. Do states have a right to require immigrants to follow the rules? Do they have a duty to protect their citizens?
Do popes have a mandate to dictate the policies of states in areas pertaining to these issues? And if so, is Francis taking a side in politics that is in contradiction to authentic Catholic social teaching?
Considering how often he gaily re-writes Scripture off the top of his head, I think I know the answer to the last.