Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Francis in Cuba
From an editorial in the Washington Post:
The pope is spending four days in a country whose Communist dictatorship has remained unrelenting in its repression of free speech, political dissent and other human rights despite a warming of relations with the Vatican and the United States. Yet by the end of his third day, the pope had said or done absolutely nothing that might discomfit his official hosts.
Pope Francis met with 89-year old Fidel Castro, who holds no office in Cuba, but not with any members of the dissident community — in or outside of prison. According to the Web site 14ymedio.com, two opposition activists were invited to greet the pope at Havana’s cathedral Sunday but were arrested on the way. Dozens of other dissidents were detained when they attempted to attend an open air Mass. They needn’t have bothered: The pope said nothing in his homily about their cause, or even political freedom more generally.
Care for a contrast? Just look at this picture of Francis’s predecessor, St. John Paul II, embracing Lech Walesea, the leading dissident in Communist Poland. It is possible to reign as supreme pontiff, remaining, fundamentally, above politics — and yet to stand with those fighting for human liberty.
Photo above: AFP/Getty via the Telegraph
Published in General, Religion & Philosophy
He should. If you see two evils in the world – one of which is arguably greater than the other – and you choose to call out one while embracing the other, it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions.
See what you’ve done, here, though? I did not say that Francis should not call out capitalism. I juxtaposed his desire to call out Capitalism by name with your suggestion of his “bowl of molasses” technique with other political structures. You then ask why I might be opposed to recognition of potential evils within capitalist systems, which was never my argument…
So what’s your answer to my actual question? It was not unclear.
Stop arguing with strawmen, Casey. You did not misunderstand my point.
Source: Washington Examiner
Once again, I am going to beat this horse because it is starting to get obnoxious. I did not ever suggest that a person cannot call out capitalists. Casey’s response is non-responsive. Capitalism may or may not be a problem, and we can discuss whether there are alternative solutions that are any better … but that is not the point I was making. The logical structure of this discussion is pretty clear, and a person doesn’t need “The Philosopher’s Toolkit” (see what I did there, Peter?) to observe it:
1) I make a point about the disconnect in the claim that Francis is supposedly luring flies to the molasses in one system while calling by name in another system, and requested an explanation.
2) Casey replied with “why shouldn’t he call by name?”, which is not even close to what I said, but it does attempt to turn the tables by placing me on the defensive for an argument I never made. It is perfectly reasonable to analyze a person’s position by juxtaposing his statements regarding one system with his statements (or lack thereof) regarding alternate systems.
3) I’m turning it back around. Address my initial point.
It was perfectly unclear. What is it you expect me to respond to?
That is interesting, Pseud. But instead of merely posting the quote, perhaps you could add some commentary? I’m unclear what point you’re making. I’m not saying I don’t agree with your point, only that I’m not 100% certain what it is.
Stop playing dumb. I’ve read enough of your posts and comments to know you’re not… generally. ;)
Go back and read my comment #51. I also posted a much longer comment that makes a similar point.
“It is one thing to dine with sinners. Entirely another to toast to them.” Patrick Archbold
There has been no official Vatican complaint about the invite list, which contradicts the original WSJ story.
But more importantly, Fr. Llorente made a public declaration of wanting to hear Castro’s confession:
That’s Pope Francis making a silent point.
Thanks Peter for what seems to be an obvious point. Who knew that it would generate so much sophistry?
“If he catches you you’re through.”
I have no idea what you are ranting about. I was responding to Casey. If you have an issue with him go cover it up in his litter box.
Pope John Paul II on his 1983 arrival in Managua, wags his finger and publicly reprimands Liberation Theology Jesuit priest and Sandinista Minister of Culture Ernesto Cardenal.
:) I’m agreeing with you, Brent. My rant was about Casey’s misdirection. It was admittedly confusing that I said it in response to your comment.
Passive aggressive.
Beep Beep!
Casey,
Ryan is absolutely correct. The Pope clearly considers it part of his job to call out the evils he sees.
Apparently, brutal dictators don’t make the cut.
Yes. The Pope’s #1 job is to save souls. He looked evil, the Castro brothers, in the face yet made no attempt to reform them.
How much do you want to bet he has stronger words for Paul Ryan than he did for the Castro brothers?
You lost me that time Ryan. No sweat. It is easy to do.
You mean sophistry isn’t a good thing?
[runs over to dictionary; gasps]
Actually, the key word is “is.”
Capitalism has problems.
Communism is a problem.
If your question is “Why is he more critical of X than Y?”, then perhaps it is because in his view X presents greater moral hazards than Y. And/or perhaps he believes that Y, reluctant to accept his message, is best approached gently. And/or perhaps X needs a little shaking up.
Does that address your question?
Got it. The capitalists should be increasingly brutal in order to insure a gentler hand from the Pope.
If the Pope can’t be a prophetic voice then what is he good for? At that point he’s just a Latin American Marxist wearing a funny-looking robe.
One thought that popped up as I read through the comments: “Is there an ethnic component? Being from Argentina, does the Pope have an aversion to criticizing the Castro regime?”
My understanding is that Cuba is to the region what the PA is to the Arab world, at least for some people. Is there anything to that?
Is it really impossible that you were unclear?
Tu quoque all day long my brother. That is sophistry isn’t it? I thought it was brave drawing attention to the silence of American officials to the sexual abuse of Afghan boys. Sometimes tu quoque can have unintended side effects.