Speaking on a Vatican proposal to restructure world finance, a Cardinal declared, "We should not be afraid to propose ideas even if they might destabilize pre-existing balances of power that prevail over the weakest."
And does this include the position enjoyed by the Vatican as well?
Or is this yet another example of the "don't do as I do, do as I say" mentality that prevails among globalist elites?
Before calling for the redistribution of global wealth, shouldn't an institution calling for such divest itself of its ostentatious finery that, despite having a certain beauty, wasn't necessarily part of the founder's original business plan when operating in the field?
Before lecturing the rest of us how we need a goodly portion of what we have taken away in the name of the downtrodden, how about telling the downtrodden to exercise a little control over themselves by refraining from having so many children that they can't afford?
Isn't that the greater act of selfishness, going through with one's own carnal enjoyment despite knowing that the life of the resultant progeny will be likely destitution?
Shouldn't one of the world's foremost moral authorities instead be calling for more independent creation of wealth rather than the centralized bureaucratic redistribution of such resources?
The Vatican insists such reforms are required in order to make the world economy more responsive to democracy.
So what is going to protect Vatican assets when the enemies of all forms of Christianity vote to confiscate that institution's vast and historically varied holdings?
For the sake of sound doctrine and human liberty, patriotic and Tea Party conservatives should be no more reluctant to speak out against the Vatican's call for the redistribution of wealth than they would be of any other politician or institution proposing a similar policy that has historically resulted in the infringement of basic civil liberties and even the significant shedding of innocent blood.
by Frederick Meekins