Am I reading this wrong? Is it just me?

Is this a backhanded compliment from president Trump?

Why do I say that?

Pope Francis passing and legacy

Pope Francis has died. Via the BBC:

Tributes have been pouring in for Pope Francis from around the world.

The pontiff had been ill for several weeks, but appeared in public yesterday to give an Easter Sunday blessing in St Peter’s Square.

Yesterday, he also briefly met US Vice-President JD Vance, who shared his condolences this morning.

And what might be his legacy? I tend to agree with this take from The Spectator, or at least this portion of it:

Modern popes, for better or for worse, tend to be defined in soundbites.

John Paul II’s clarion call of “Be not afraid” became emblematic of his invitation to young Catholics to embrace their faith and his rallying of the West against the specter of international Communism. Benedict XVI’s great theological career, and his term as a pope in the model of priest and professor, remains summed up in his simple declaration that Deus caritas est. For Francis, the world will likely remember, in the immediate weeks after his death anyway, his often quoted, though often misrepresented, motto of “who am I to judge?”

Uttered during one of his habitual in-flight press conferences in response to a question about gay clergy who sought to live their ministry and their lives faithful to the Church’s teaching on human sexuality, it became a shorthand for a pope committed more than anything to a radical posture of welcome – a “Vatican Council II pope,” he was dubbed in the media, dedicated to throwing open wide the Church’s doors to Catholics, and indeed to everyone, without censure or reservation about their complicated lives.

Pope Francis health update

Things are not looking good for the Pope.

Pope Francis under fire

Pope Francis revelation has him under fire for covering up church scandal and protecting clergy who were apparently involved in scandalous behavior.

Socialist Pope Decries Bureaucracy

The Guardian has this story:

Pope Francis has rebuked Vatican colleagues in a Christmas message, denouncing the “cancer” of cliques and how bureaucrats can become corrupted by ambition and vanity.

“Reforming Rome is like cleaning the Egyptian sphinxes with a toothbrush,” Francis told cardinals, bishops and priests who work for him on Thursday. “You need patience, dedication and delicacy.”

The pope acknowledged there were competent, loyal and even saintly people working in the Holy See. But others tasked with helping to reform the Vatican’s inefficient and outdated bureaucracy had shown themselves to be not up to the task.

Interesting. Donald Trump was sent to Washington to drain the swamp. Pope Francis dislikes president Trump (as a president at any rate). But now he's faced with his own bureaucratic resistance. I wonder if he sees the irony.

Vatican about to become even more leftist progressive

What are you doing to our church?

The Pope is slimming down the Vatican - less bureaucracy, that's a good thing right?  Not so fast.  Dictators like to consolidate power. Pope Francis has already proven that he's far to the left of his two predecessors.  Now he's taking direct control of issues that are sure to have global ramifications and might split the church ideologically:

ROME (Reuters) - Pope Francis on Wednesday announced major changes to the Vatican bureaucracy, slimming down the number of offices and giving himself direct charge of migration issues, continuing a reform push he promised when elected more than three years ago.

In a document known as a Motu Proprio, Latin for "by his own initiative", the pope said he would merge four Vatican offices into a "Dicastery for the Service of Integral Human Development" starting on Jan. 1.

When elected in 2013, Francis pledged to cleanse the Church's bureaucracy, which had been rocked by scandals and charges of greed and corruption. He said he wanted "a poor Church" that served the poor.

The pope will oversee work on migration and refugees within the new dicastery, or department, which will absorb the offices for justice and peace, human and Christian development, immigration, and health workers.

It will spearhead the Church's humanitarian work internationally, including oversight of funds allocated to charities, focusing on "migrants, those in need, the sick, the excluded and marginalized, the imprisoned and the unemployed, as well as victims of armed conflict, natural disasters, and all forms of slavery and torture," the pope wrote.

Cloak it in verbiage as you will, this is a dramatic shift in focus for the church and it's also a consolidation of power.

Foreign leaders decrying Trump are helping him

The Pope disagrees with Trump - no damage. China is worried about Trump causing a trade war - no damage. Vincente Fox, former leader of Mexico is angry about Trump winning.  My prediction - no damage. 

In fact these people are helping Trump.  He promises to give America backbone in its dealings with foreign nations.  These leaders being upset proves his point.  That doesn't make Trump the right candidate.  But it does help make his case.

Socialist Pope redux

I'm not sure how I missed this back in July of 2015. But it's worth noting. Supposedly Pope Francis was 'surprised' by this, but the fact that Bolivian president Evo Morales felt in a position to offer this to the Pope, says a lot about the image he has projected - at a minimum.  I for one, am not surprised that this happened. I don't think the Pope really was either, unless he wants to be a stealth socialist Pope and this blew his cover.

Yes, that's a hammer and sickle crucifix.

(CNN) The look on the face of Pope Francis says it all.

Why am I being presented with a wooden crucifix laid on a hammer and sickle, the Communist symbol conceived during the Russian Revolution?

The Pope received the gift from Bolivian President Evo Morales on the latest stage of his South American tour. He later celebrated Mass with nearly 1 million Bolivians in Santa Cruz.

The links and battles between Communism and the Catholic Church are an extremely sensitive subject in Latin America, the Pope's home continent. While he was an archbishop in Argentina, Francis tried to strike a delicate balance between championing the poor and avoiding class warfare.

According to reports, Morales told Francis that the "Communist crucifix" was modeled on a design created by the Rev. Luis Espinal, a politically active priest murdered by right-wing paramilitaries in Bolivia in 1980. The Pope stopped and prayed at the site of the shooting on Wednesday evening.

That is not cool.

A compassionate Pope

I've spent a fair bit of time over his tenure disagreeing with Pope Francis' politics, which I view as having a highly socialistic slant.  But that does not mean that I do not respect the Pope's Christianity.  In fact, he appears to be a very compassionate and caring man. He's shown it.

Almost as soon as he arrived in Philadelphia, the pope stopped his convoy and got out of his modest Fiat to bless a boy in a wheelchair, pressed up against the security fence at the airport. The child's mother dissolved into grateful tears.

Since becoming pope in 2013, Francis has focused on society's most deprived and needy. He was once photographed embracing a horribly disfigured man.

"He has a special love for children with special needs," said Eberhard.

I think he deserves to be acknowledged for that compassion, even if I do disagree with him on global warming and illegal immigration issues. In fact, I'd argue that socialism is the opposite of compassion as it creates a cycle of dependency. It's downright feudal in nature.

But that's a debate for another time.  I applaud the Pope for his sentiments - his heart is definitely in the right place.

The Pope is getting on my nerves

So Pope Socialist Francis has decreed that the refugee crisis is because of money.

In an interview with Portugal-based Radio Renascença aired yesterday, Pope Francis declared that the current refugee crisis in Europe is being caused by a “bad, unjust” socio-economic system that worships “the god of money.”

Not war, not a despot, not Muslim radicals, money. This is an agenda driven papacy and the agenda doesn't seem to include reality.

Clericalism - point, counterpoint

An interesting set of views given the Pope's recent efforts to lower the bar for Catholics.  For every opinion there's an opposing view, particularly when it comes to religious meanings.  First, Pope Francis' view on clericalism.  

Next, a cogent counter-point. I like this view. While many more people will fall short, it is important to try to attain a higher standard and fall short than to set a low standard and easily succeed, though not at the level you could have reached even in failing to achieve it.

I'm not saying that forgiveness for abortion is out of the question.  I'm saying don't offer people a free pass. The same is true for divorce.  At least give people a spiritual incentive to try harder.

Pope wants to enter America across the Mexican border

Maybe I should not have quit.

According to RollCall:

Lawmakers and immigration activists expect the pontiff’s message will resonate beyond Capitol Hill and inspire members of Congress and their constituents. The pope's U.S. schedule includes an address to Congress on Sept. 24 and a meeting two days later with immigrants and Hispanic families at Philadelphia’s Independence Mall.

“He’s been clear on our failure to respond appropriately to immigrants and refugees,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told CQ. “I don’t think anyone will have any doubt on where the church stands on immigration after the pope visits the United States.”

Pope Francis has been vocal about the treatment of immigrants since he became the head of the Roman Catholic Church in March 2013. Last year, he called the surge of Central American children crossing the border into the United States a “humanitarian emergency.” In a June encyclical letter on climate change, Francis noted the “tragic rise” of immigrants fleeing poverty.

Is the Pope socialist? I believe so. Regardless, this is all a humanist agenda masquerading as Catholic doctrine. Environmentalism, immigration. Is this really what the Pope needs to focus on when Christians are being persecuted around the world? And why the publicity stunt?

As an aside - It's ironic that certain Democrats feel it's important for Catholics to heed their Pope when it comes to immigration, but it's a totally different story when it comes to abortion.

Pope Francis, still a socialist

I'm sure the Pope is pursuing what he believes is a moral God-centered agenda, but really, lighten up Francis. Stop sticking your head in the political arena. Yes, I'm sure it's a best of intentions world view he has. But I'm even more sure he's wrong. Just because he's Pope doesn't make him right. I'm sure Pope John Paul II would disagree with him on a number of his decisions. Two Popes, two world views. It only proves they are human, and they both can't be right about something they disagree on.

Yes, everything is political, but a Pope blessing a climate treaty is left-wing political tripe. Of course Bloomberg loves it - your Pope agrees with us on global warming so now you have to believe too! No.  No I don't.

Yes, and he's against capitalism too, the same as the radical environmental movement. It's the same as socialists and communists are against capitalism.

To stretch his concern for the poor motif to climate change is as much a stretch as it is to say the polar ice caps will be gone in a few years (i.e. it's an impossible stretch).

The more I see this Pope, the more I believe his elevation to the Papacy was based on geography and demographics and not on his beliefs.

Obama Hearts Pope

Um, who couldn't have seen this coming from a socialist Pope and a socialist president?

President Obama increasingly is finding a key policy ally in the Vatican, with Pope Francis standing virtually shoulder to shoulder with the White House on income inequality and a historic diplomatic reboot with communist Cuba. The pontiff next year also appears poised to offer greater support to the president on climate change initiatives and reportedly wants to be a leading voice at a U.N. global warming summit next year, where the American president will make perhaps his greatest pitch to date for more dramatic action on the environment.

I know I did, except I thought it would be much less in the visible spectrum.

Obama to meet progressive Pope

President Obama did meet with Pope Benedict, but his upcoming meeting with the much more progressive Pope Francis is a meeting he might actually be looking forward to having.

Via Time:

In the first year of his papacy, Francis has shifted the Catholic conversation toward Obama’s side of the court, lowering the heat on culture-war battles like gay marriage in favor of an emphasis on the least fortunate...

In 2009, Obama met with Francis’ predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. The two talked for a little less than half an hour, nearly double the 15 minutes that had been allotted. In a conversation that seemed to be a search for common ground, the two discussed immigration, the global economic crisis and the peace process in the Middle East. Benedict raised the issue of abortion, and Obama pledged to do everything in his power to reduce their numbers.

The president and Pope Francis are aligned on a lot more than they are in disagreement over (for example,abortion). Expect this meeting to go longer than 30 minutes.

The Pope, Christmas and the Holy Land

In my previous post, I was less than complimentary to the Pope.  I thought I'd counterbalance it with some positive words about the Pontiff.  After all, it is his birthday today.  In the same article in The Guardian that talked about the Pope standing by his comments on capitalism as though all of capitalism were the incarnation of Ebenezer Scrooge, the Pope also spoke about Christmas and the Holy Land:

He said that his thoughts during that time went above all to Christians living in the Holy Land, where he is expected to go next year.

He said he would like to mark the 50th anniversary of Paul VI's pioneering visit in 1964 – the first papal pilgrimage to the Holy Land and the first time a reigning pontiff had flown on a plane – along with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christian church.

He added that violence targeted at Christians in some parts of the world was forming the basis of what he called a new ecumenism of blood. "In some countries they kill Christians because they wear a cross or have a Bible, and before killing them they don't ask them if they're Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox," he said.

"Those who kill Christians don't ask you for an identity card in order to know what church you were baptised in. We must take this reality into account."

Christmas, said Francis, was a time of hope and tenderness that should shake people from indifference when they are confronted with suffering in the world.

That is good and worthy of applause.  

Marxism and the Pope

Bitter clingers?

The Pope says he's not a Marxist, but he's defending his criticism of capitalism according to The Guardian.  Great. I would contend that the Pope wasn't asked the right question.  

Pope Francis has rejected accusations from rightwing Americans that his teaching is Marxist, defending his criticisms of the capitalist system and urging more attention be given to the poor in a wide-ranging interview.

In remarks to the Italian daily La Stampa, the Argentinian pontiff said the views he had espoused in his first apostolic exhortation last month – which the rightwing US radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked as "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong" – were simply those of the church's social doctrine. Limbaugh described the pope's economics as "pure Marxism".

"The ideology of Marxism is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don't feel offended," Francis was quoted as saying. Defending his criticism of the "trickle-down" theory of economics, he added: "There was the promise that once the glass had become full it would overflow and the poor would benefit. But what happens is that when it's full to the brim, the glass magically grows, and thus nothing ever comes out for the poor ... I repeat: I did not talk as a specialist but according to the social doctrine of the church. And this does not mean being a Marxist."

He's not a Marxist, Marx decried religion so that would make no sense.  The Pope should have been asked if he was a  socialist.  If he has a political worldview that is informing his political views rather than the reverse, people should know about that.  

The Pope wants to reform the Catholic church.  That can be good and bad.  His focus on the poor is not a bad thing.  That focus would certainly help attract new people to the church.  But there is a difference between recognizing a problem and the prescription applied to it as a cure.  The Pope has decried capitalism but it has often been applied in a way that is as twisted as Marxists claim communism was applied in Soviet Russia.  In other words, capitalism has seen many flawed applications and it has still managed to lift millions of people out of poverty.  Perhaps what the Pope might be seeking is socialism.  Perhaps tempered capitalism.  He has been less than clear.

The danger for the church, particularly in the United States is that if he is taking a socialist approach, he risks turning off a lot of people.  While he may gain converts to Catholicism around the world, he could certainly lose the passion or even the faith of followers in America (and elsewhere). It's not clear if the Pope believes that to be the case and is taking a calculated risk, or doesn't know, or doesn't care.  The Catholic church  has a big pulpit.  If the pontifications coming from that pulpit espouse increased government control, the church may have lost its rudder.

Progressive Pope Redux

Quite a while back (well, in April) a said I had an issue with the new Pope - he was a socialist, progressive.  While he might attract a new crowd to the church, he is still pursuing a progressivist (i.e. socially liberal, anti-capitalist) agenda.  It looks like the Washington Post has caught up to the fact that conservative Catholics are catching up to the Papal political predilections.

Rattled by Pope Francis’s admonishment to Catholics not to be “obsessed” by doctrine, his stated reluctance to judge gay people and his apparent willingness to engage just about anyone — including atheists — many conservative Catholics are doing what only recently seemed unthinkable:

They are openly questioning the pope.

But what the Washington Post regards as liberal, isn't in synch with what the Pope is actually propagating. In fact, the WaPo misses what is at the root of the question, entirely.  Nevertheless, they forge ahead with the premise.

During the previous three decades, popes John Paul II and Benedict shared a focus: Make orthodox teachings crystal clear so Catholics don’t get lost in an increasingly messy, relativistic world.

Catholics also became accustomed to popes who were largely speaking to “the Church,” rather than the public. These men often communicated in the language of Catholic theology, and through books, not through long, freewheeling interviews, like Pope Francis.

 

So the Pope is trying to get converts to Catholicism by talking to non-Catholics rather preaching to the choir, so to speak? That's not so radical. But that's not all the Pope is doing.  In addition to what I blogged about, a lot has been made about the Pope's comments on the world financial system: not that money is the root of all evil, but that preventing governments from doing good was a problem of capitalism.  That is highly debatable - what about corruption, and governmental inefficiency and despotic governments to name a few other causes.

Papal infallibility may be a difficult mental hurdle for some to overcome but not all Catholics just swallow Papal statements as pardon the expression, gospel.

Speaking to newly accredited ambassadors to the Vatican, Pope Francis attacked the ‘‘dictatorship’’ of the global financial system, and warned that the ‘‘cult of money’’ was making life a misery for millions.

He blamed “ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and “thus deny the right of control to states”, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good.”

He further blamed inadequate regulation which has resulted in “a new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny … one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules.”

He said, “Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life,” he said, quoting St. John Chrysostom. “It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs.”

Again, I'm not Catholic though I was baptized Catholic.  So my opinion may not resonate with devout Catholics.  But it seems to me that "Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them ..." is again a simplification.  Doesn't it make more sense to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish?  In the end, the former choice is actually more compassionate.  You can feed a man for life if you teach him to catch the fish himself.  To do otherwise is to short change the man by giving him one fish instead of thousands.  Alternately you could give the man a fish every day but then he becomes dependent on you.  That might serve your own sense of moral goodness (falsely) but it takes away the mans self-sufficiency, and sense of self and his own moral obligation to try, and to work.  That to me, is really robbing the poor.

 

It's okay to help, but if it becomes a crutch, it serves no one well.  I'm no Pope but that is my opinion.

Quick hits: Immigration, Sequestration & the Pope

Immigration reform: There is supposed to be a covenant between the people of America and the soldiers who risk their lives to protect the freedoms. The soldiers who protect American freedoms are not tasked with protecting the freedoms of those who are not Americans. Those who are in the country contrary to the rule of law, and are likely not paying taxes, aren't living up to their end of the covenant.  Granting them citizenship status is a slap in the face of the soldiers who risk their lives to defend freedom.  They are not supposed to be defending dishonesty.

*******************************************************

Sequestration:  Has the government fallen apart since the sequestration cuts kicked in earlier this year? Um, no. So why did the Democrats, particularly the president go into "the sky is falling" mode before the cuts, and then afterwards saying the pain is still coming?  Because they don't want to cut spending, they want to grow government.  They will never be satisfied with any sort of government cutbacks unless the cuts are from defense spending.

*******************************************************

Pope Harley?  Just an image concern here.  There's nothing wrong with Harley Davidson donating motorcycles to the Vatican or Pope Francis blessing a swath of bikers, except for the image that is creates.  I'll let you decide to whose image I am referring.

*******************************************************

Bonus: Add this to your list of impinged freedoms. Who owns your personal information?  This isn't the same as the Verizon, AP and Prism scandals which are about metadata.  This fourth amendment issue is about your actual health records.

Pope Socialist, I am NOT cool with that.

Socialist Cristina Fernández Kirchner with the then future Pope.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  In the spirit of full disclosure, let me start by saying that I was baptized Catholic, but my father was (is) a rabid atheist.  As the story is told to me, my paternal grandmother had me baptized without my father's knowledge.   I grew up in a home where religion was absent.  My maternal grandmother was profoundly religious, and I spent a lot of time with her as a child.  Consequently, most of my exposure to Christianity was through her.  She was a member of the United Church, a Protestant denomination.  It may explain my consternation with the idea that anyone of a Christian or Jewish faith does not have a significant tolerance for anyone else in any of those particular subsets that is different from their own - or indeed any other religion that does not foster hatred or tolerance of religious liberty, or the choice to be an atheist or agnostic. I myself identify as a Christian, not a Catholic, or Lutheran or United Church parishioner. I try to live a Christian life but am far from perfect.   I bring all of this up because there may be people who believe I am, because of my religious self-identification (or lack thereof), I am not qualified to disagree with the Pope, or more accurately, that in this case my opinion does not matter.

That is their prerogative.  I respectfully disagree.   I was a great admirer of Pope John Paul, and just because I disagree with a Pope does not mean I disagree with all of Catholicism.

Alright, this post may p*** off a number of my readers because I am about to disagree with the Pope.  The Pope it seems, is a socialist.  He has a fetish for social justice.

The former Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio's "resume" is open to interpretation. The first Jesuit pope, he is known to share his religious order's passion for education and social justice, particularly as it concerns the welfare of the poor and oppressed. In a speech last year, he accused fellow church officials of hypocrisy "for forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes," according to the Associated Press.

It seems like this guy sees the Pope as a useful idiot.

Coming from South America, where socialism is the predominant notion when it comes to political philosophy, it is not surprising that he would seek to marry his religious beliefs (which I am sure are heartfelt) with his political beliefs (which I'm sure are equally heartfelt).  Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Che Guevara are some high profile examples of South American politics.  In nations where poverty is rampant and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is so vast, socialism is an easy sell.  Priests of the church are not immune to the political speeches of men.

Indeed the Pope can turn to the Bible to find scripture that can reinforce the notion of social justice.  But here's the problem I have with that approach.  It is not the responsibility of government to impart social justice from a Christian perspective.  To require the government to impart social justice is an abrogation of one's own duty as a Christian.  It is in a sense a way of saying I cannot do it myself so I will get the government to force me, and others to pay for social justice.  It is both sloth and greed that lead to this mindset.

Secondly, while working through the church to do such things creates a similar quandary,  a church is still a voluntary membership organization.  You are not required to attend church and even upon attending you are not compelled to donate, the way you are with an income tax.  You still have freedom of choice, an inalienable right given by God.  

Thirdly, as a Christian, it is more responsible to be involved directly with the social injustices you see.  I'm sure that will be seen as more important and more charitable by God.  I could be wrong, but paying an extra dollar in tax is less altruistic than helping a person on your street who needs a hand.  Raising funds for 

Fourthly, the question of whether the church should be involved in affairs of state at all is debatable. It is one thing to say help the poor, it is another to say the government's austerity measures are bad.    I also find it quite ironic that liberals in the U.S. who will hammer the table for the separation of church and state from the perspective of government would feel quite happy to accept the views  of the church and feel that it is okay for them to espouse a progressive cause like social justice. I guess the separation of church and state only works one way for them. At least, while it's convenient with Pope socialist.

It is important to remember that South America has never had equality of opportunity, and this is not the fault of capitalism.  Everything from conquest to corruption and cronyism  have played much larger parts.  Certainly Puerto Rico has had some success with fledgling capitalism, and Mexico has put itself on a path to prosperity - assuming it's criminal issues can be resolved.  Capitalism is not the enemy of the poor and it certainly is not the enemy of the church. Ignorance is the enemy of both. Is there any place where the gap between the very wealthy and very poor is as bad as China?  The poor in the United States have televisions and air conditioners.  The poor in communist Cuba are more numerous than pre-Castro.  Oops.

Setting aside all of the geopolitical stuff, there are religious reasons to consider that perhaps the Pope is wrong on this one.  They are expressed pretty well in numerous places on the website Christian Capitalism, here's an excerpt from one such post:

Simply, God ordains governments for the suppression of evil.  In Genesis 9:5-6, the initial post-diluvian government was to be established upon capital punishment in order to suppress evil.  This was the extent of the affirmative directive from God.  It must be stressed ever so strongly, that the Bible never commands or mandates anything further for human government than to suppress evil.  Thus it is wrong to assert that God ordains active redistribution of wealth in a government. 

Jesus commanded us in Luke 10:37 to take our personal abilities, talents and possessions and use them in showing mercy to other individuals.  Jesus demonstrated this by taking His own abilities and talents (which were considerable since He was God on earth) and used them to show mercy to other individuals. 

Jesus never projected this command to any government. To take this command and extrapolate it to government is simply not in the text.  Let me repeat, the Bible makes no mandate whatsoever for a government to take the position of redistributors of wealth. 

“But does not Romans 13:7 order us to pay taxes?” one may ask.  Yes!  But these taxes are for the government’s duty to restrain evil.  No mandate for taxes for entitlement programs was ever given. 

Neither did Jesus compel or force His followers to give their wealth away.  Giving was to be voluntary and done cheerfully from the heart.  Those who gave with bad motives would lose their heavenly reward or, at worst, be struck down (Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-9). 

But did not the early Church of Jerusalem in Acts 4:32-36 sell all their goods and “distributed to each as anyone had need”?  Yes, they did do this.  But we must note again that their participation in this community was voluntary (Acts 5:4).

 Now, it's not a slam dunk that the Pope is a socialist, but there is plenty of evidence that he leans that way.  While that may be good for the Catholic church in South America or other socialist and communist countries, it isn't de facto good for Christianity and certainly not for the global financial situation.