Pope Benedict XVI calls for "the redistribution of wealth"--a blow to Free Market Theology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bartolome_Casas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bartolome_Casas

Guest
**Here’s the article describing Pope Benedict’s call for wealth redistribution:
**
washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pope-benedict-xvis-peace-message-calls-for-wealth-redistribution/2011/12/16/gIQA0Z9nyO_story.html

Pope Benedict XVI’s peace message calls for wealth redistribution

By Francis X. Rocca| Religion News Service, Published: December 16

VATICAN CITY — Noting a “rising sense of frustration” at the worldwide economic recession, Pope Benedict XVI said that a more just and peaceful world requires “adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth.”

The pope’s words appeared in his message for the World Day of Peace 2012, released on Friday (Dec. 16) at the Vatican.

The message laments that “some currents of modern culture, built upon rationalist and individualist economic principles, have cut off the concept of justice from its transcendent roots, detaching it from charity and solidarity.”

Authentic education, Benedict writes, teaches the proper use of freedom with “respect for oneself and others, including those whose way of being and living differs greatly from one’s own.”

Peace-making requires education not only in the values of compassion and solidarity, but in the importance of wealth redistribution, the “promotion of growth, cooperation for development and conflict resolution,” Benedict writes.

**Full text of the pope’s message can be found here:
**
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20111208_xlv-world-day-peace_en.html

**Here’s an earlier quote from Pope Benedict that shocked and upset many:
**
“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” (“Europe and Its Discontents,” by Benedict XVI)

I wonder who the proponents of Free Market Theology take all this.

I am using the term “Free Market Theology” to refer a radical neo-Capitalism-based theology that is the mirror opposite of “Liberation Theology,” a radical neo-Marxism theology.

As I see it, proponents of Free Market Theology teach that Jesus Christ was born, lived, and died on the Cross in liberate people from Big Government, in order to make people free to earn as much money as possible by personal work, by the management of the work of others, and by passive investment of capital, with little or no taxation on those earnings, with no legal mandate on the wealthy to do anything for the poor.

Proponents of Liberation Theology teach that Jesus Christ was born, lived and died on the Cross in order to liberate people from three main forms of oppression: Capitalism; patriarchy-based culture; and the appointed hierarchy-based government of the Catholic Church.

Thus, as I see it, both Liberation Theology and Free Market Theology promote a “liberation,” the former a liberation from Big Government (which is sort of owned by college professors viewed as ivory tower dreamers), the latter a liberation from Big Business (the owners of major businesses who are part of the country club set)
 
My respect for Pope Benedict just keeps growing.

This is a challenging message for many - including many Catholics - but it is consistent with the Gospel.
 
Bartolome_Casas said:
**
**Here’s an earlier quote from Pope Benedict that shocked and upset many:
“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” (“Europe and Its Discontents,” by Benedict XVI)

I wonder who the proponents of Free Market Theology take all this.

It is a real tragedy that some folks have this talent of pulling things out of context. Take, for example, the Holy Father’s quote, a part of a larger speech/essay back in 2004 prior to his election as Pontiff.

Here is the context:

Since the French Revolution, two new European models have developed. In the Latin nations the lay model has prevailed. They sharply distinguish the state from religious bodies, deeming them to fall under the private sphere…(snip)

In the Germanic world, the liberal Protestant model of church and state has prevailed. According to this model, an enlightened Christian religion—conceived of as essentially moral and involving state-supported forms of worship—guarantees a moral consensus and a broad religious foundation to which the single non-state religions must conform…(snip)

Situated between the two models is the model of the United States of America. Formed on the basis of free churches, it adopts a separation between church and state…(snip)

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

The totalitarian model, by contrast, was associated with a rigidly materialistic, atheistic philosophy of history: It saw history deterministically, as a road of progress that passes first through the religious and then through the liberal phase to arrive at an absolute, ultimate society in which religion is surpassed as a relic of the past and collective happiness is guaranteed by the workings of material conditions.

This scientific façade hides an intolerant dogmatism that views the spirit as produced by matter and morals as produced by circumstances…(snip)

The Communist systems collapsed under the weight of their own fallacious economic dogmatism. Commentators have nevertheless ignored all too readily the role played by the Communists’ contempt for human rights and their subordination of morals to the demands of the system and the promise of a future. The greatest catastrophe encountered by such systems was not economic. It was the starvation of souls and the destruction of the moral conscience.
Naturally, context is irrelevant. Understanding what the Holy Father is actually saying is not important. What is important is being able to get a sound byte that makes it appear as if the Holy Father is smart enough to agree with your worldview.

Lest anybody think that democratic socialism (or social democracy) is something that is approved of by the Holy Father, I don’t believe he would disagree at all with the words of Leo XIII:
  1. What Social Democracy is and what Christian Democracy ought to be, assuredly no one can doubt. The first, with due consideration to the greater or less intemperance of its utterance, is carried to such an excess by many as to maintain that there is really nothing existing above the natural order of things, and that the acquirement and enjoyment of corporal and external goods constitute man’s happiness. It aims at putting all government in the hands of the masses, reducing all ranks to the same level, abolishing all distinction of class, and finally introducing community of goods. Hence, the right to own private property is to be abrogated, and whatever property a man possesses, or whatever means of livelihood he has, is to be common to all.
  2. As against this, Christian Democracy, by the fact that it is Christian, is built, and necessarily so, on the basic principles of divine faith, and it must provide better conditions for the masses, with the ulterior object of promoting the perfection of souls made for things eternal. Hence, for Christian Democracy, justice is sacred; it must maintain that the right of acquiring and possessing property cannot be impugned, and it must safeguard the various distinctions and degrees which are indispensable in every wellordered commonwealth. Finally, it must endeavor to preserve in every human society the form and the character which God ever impresses on it. It is clear, therefore, that there in nothing in common between Social and Christian Democracy. They differ from each other as much as the sect of socialism differs from the profession of Christianity.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t see redistribution of wealth as a blow to any aspect of free market thinking. There was a better relationship between the two in recent history.

Contemporary political rhetoric has become in many cases extreme, concentrated and simplistic in ideological herding efforts that many seem led to believe that all of their national economic history has been some sort of conflict between two ideologically pure and opposing views. Truthfully, in many cases it’s been much more weighted to a blended approach.

So for example, the more re-distributive tax structure which existed (American) approximately 40-60 years ago was doubly effective in redistributing wealth well and rewarding private enterprise. A good balance was struck. This isn’t to say the system was anything close to perfect, however it illustrates well that a society can have a measure of both:
adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth.
Click to expand...
And
individualist economic principles,
Click to expand...
If WE - aspire to it.
 
This reminds of the comments the Pope made in ‘Light of the World’ about condoms, comments that then get completely misconstrued and misinterpreted by the mainstream media.

This commentary may help clarify:

Some people are disturbed by Pope’s Benedict’s use of the term “redistribution of wealth” in his latest Message for World Day of Peace. Every year in December the Pope issues a message, not an Encyclical, not an Allocution, not a papal document that carries any degree of infallibility; it is simply a message to the whole world for the World Day of Peace that is celebrated on January 1st every year.

It is important to note that this year’s Message is devoted to educating young people in justice and peace. It is about education, not primarily economics or world finance although those subjects are considered by the Pope to be important for the education of young people.

Also it is important to note that the Pope’s reference to “redistribution of wealth” occurs, not in the section of justice, but in the section on peace. We here in the United States have been polarized by Barack Hussein Obama’s blatant response to Joe the Plumber in 2008 that one of Obama’s goals is the redistribution of wealth through taxation. He has lived up to his promise and has never ceased to push for taxing the wealthy (including the middle class) in order to pay for his ever expanding entitlement programs. I am sure that he considers it one of his accomplishments that there are now 46,000,000 Americans living on food stamps. That and similar entitlement programs are only possible if he taxes those who have money in order to give more to those who have less money.

Pope Benedict is not writing in the context of taxing more those who have money; he is writing in the context of the Church’s teaching as set forth in all of the great social encyclicals beginning with Pope Leo XIII and continuing down through Blessed Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict is not writing about taxing the rich to help the poor but rather he and the other Popes call for the construction of “mechanisms” in our global economy that help bring about a better distribution of wealth between the nations of the First World and the nations of the Second and Third Worlds.

The Pope is very conscious of the fact that in nations of the First World (America and Europe) annual family income for a poor family is measured in tens of thousands of dollars while the annual family income for a poor family in the Third World is frequently measured in hundreds of dollars.

So, Pope Benedict is calling for the youth of the world to be educated in justice so that there may be a greater degree of insurance for peace in the future. Otherwise, revolutions and wars will be inevitable.

abyssum.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/pope-benedicts-message-for-world-day-of-peace-2012/
 
_Abyssinia said:
This reminds of the comments the Pope made in ‘Light of the World’ about condoms, comments that then completely misconstrued by the mainstream media.

This commentary may help clarify:
Click to expand...
Very nice commentary. And, of course, you are right.

A review of the Holy Father’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate makes this very apparent. He constantly references the subsidiarity function throughout that letter that clearly establishes the appropriate strata. In fact, even a proper reading of Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio (the anniversary of which was celebrated in CIV) makes this clear, as well.

You missed one point, though, in your commentary. Distributive justice does not imply government confiscation of wealth for the purpose of redistribution. Distributive justice, when informed by the principle of “participation” and “solidarity” place a direct burden on those of means to redistribute their excess to those in poverty. A direct burden: i.e., a burden for them to do so directly, not through the inefficient means of taxation and social welfare.

Thomas Aquinas discussion of this in Summa Theologica (II-II-61-2) makes this point abundantly clear.

Of course, we can’t expect the Mainstream Media to comprehend this point. Thus, Archbishop Chaput’s warning is always pertinent when citing secular news pieces that refer to the Church:

We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.
 
Having studied economics extensively, I always laugh when Americans on a certain position of the political spectrum keep spouting this nonsense of “free markets”. It is not “free market ideology” that these people are promoting, but instead a “hatred-against-the-poor” mentality.

Never in the history of the world has there been a free-market. This is a fact, and you can look it up if you wish. The United States is not a free-market. Had the United States been a free-market, much of its industry would be lost virtually overnight due to outsourcing to China and India as well as losing economic stability to bank runs (i.e. the bank panics prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve).

No serious economist believes in free-markets. It is now almost universally recognized - with the exception of ideologues - that the Government also has a role to serve in the proper functioning of an economy.

What Pope Benedict XVI’s comments demonstrate is that he is not, and will not, be bound by political point-scoring under the guise of psuedoeconomics. You can deny what the Pope has said till Kingdom comes. The fact remains that his comments are definitely in line not only with Catholic social teaching, but also with economic consensus. My hat goes off to him :tiphat:.
 
Bartolome_Casas said:
As I see it, proponents of Free Market Theology …]
Click to expand...
You are very right to refer to such thinking as “free market theology”. Because that is what it is. It is blind faith in an economic structure that has been proven not to work. All empirical studies show free-markets do not work. Even Adam Smith argued that the government was necessary to create “public works” and to implement “sin taxes”. Even Milton Friedman argued that the Federal Reserve didn’t do enough to prevent the Great Depression. One can certainly argue for freer markets, but one can not argue for a free market. There is a distinct difference.

There are many, many instances in which markets fail to function properly. These dilemmas and problems have been noted extensively, and you can search them on Google if you wish to know more about them:
  1. Efficiency Wages
  2. Free-Rider problem
  3. Price stickiness
  4. Aggregate Demand externalities
  5. Structural unemployment
  6. Information asymmetry
  7. Herd mentality (evident in securities markets)
  8. Income inequality (cf. Hyman Minsky, John Maynard Keynes, etc)
  9. Failure to achieve full employment
  10. Asset bubbles
  11. Recessions
And so on and so forth. The Pope is certainly an intelligent man :).
 
BB2 said:
Having studied economics extensively, I always laugh when Americans on a certain position of the political spectrum keep spouting this nonsense of “free markets”. It is not “free market ideology” that these people are promoting, but instead a “hatred-against-the-poor” mentality.

Never in the history of the world has there been a free-market. This is a fact, and you can look it up if you wish. The United States is not a free-market. Had the United States been a free-market, much of its industry would be lost virtually overnight due to outsourcing to China and India as well as losing economic stability to bank runs (i.e. the bank panics prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve).

No serious economist believes in free-markets. It is now almost universally recognized - with the exception of ideologues - that the Government also has a role to serve in the proper functioning of an economy.

What Pope Benedict XVI’s comments demonstrate is that he is not, and will not, be bound by political point-scoring under the guise of psuedoeconomics. You can deny what the Pope has said till Kingdom comes. The fact remains that his comments are definitely in line not only with Catholic social teaching, but also with economic consensus. My hat goes off to him :tiphat:.
Click to expand...
I am no economist but I don’t see how the US economic system has a “hatred against the poor” mentality. Please explain this statement and what economic system would you propose?
 
Like some others here, I am not an economist or a theologian. My views are thus limited.
  1. Christ said we will always have the poor amoung us. In my view, it does matter greatly how we treat the poor. RESPECT is important. Appreciation for those who do the menial tasks is also important. A word of kindness goes a long way. We should never be insulting to the poor and homeless we encounter. It is bad form to kick a man when he is down. There, but for the Grace of God, go I.
  2. Pope Leo XIII in his Rerum Novarum talked about the responsibility to pay a living wage when ever possible. Each of us have a responsibility to use our income wisely, not just selfishly. We have moral obligation to not only pay the taxes required by law, but also to contribute what we can to charity.
  3. Any Pope speaks to the entire world. Popes speak about the universal truths that are the hallmarks of the societies, God would have us create. It is up to the leaders and citizens to translate these Truths into effective action that fit their society.
  4. Pope Benedict XVI also stated that access to education is important. The poor should not be denied a fair opportunity to get an education. Yet, in America, with free education through grade 12, we have a 25% high school drop out rate. Employers need an educated work force.
 
BB2 said:
Having studied economics extensively, I always laugh when Americans on a certain position of the political spectrum keep spouting this nonsense of “free markets”. It is not “free market ideology” that these people are promoting, but instead a “hatred-against-the-poor” mentality.

Never in the history of the world has there been a free-market. This is a fact, and you can look it up if you wish. The United States is not a free-market. Had the United States been a free-market, much of its industry would be lost virtually overnight due to outsourcing to China and India as well as losing economic stability to bank runs (i.e. the bank panics prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve).

No serious economist believes in free-markets. It is now almost universally recognized - with the exception of ideologues - that the Government also has a role to serve in the proper functioning of an economy.

What Pope Benedict XVI’s comments demonstrate is that he is not, and will not, be bound by political point-scoring under the guise of psuedoeconomics. You can deny what the Pope has said till Kingdom comes. The fact remains that his comments are definitely in line not only with Catholic social teaching, but also with economic consensus. My hat goes off to him :tiphat:.
Click to expand...
Who has been promoting a strict free market theology? Do you just assume when someone refers to the free market they are referring to the extreme? Should I assume when you say social democracy you are referring to the extreme? America is a social democracy at this point, we are just less extreme of one than many countries in Europe. I for one am glad I don’t live in a country that has decide to take it upon itself to tax foods with little nutritional value in an attempt to help make decisions for people.
 
marine13 said:
I am no economist but I don’t see how the US economic system has a “hatred against the poor” mentality. Please explain this statement and what economic system would you propose?
Click to expand...
When I said “hatred-against-the-poor” mentality, I wasn’t referring to the US. I was referring to some American political pundits who loudly deplore the buzzword “wealth redistribution” and use that as a veneer for their contempt of the poor. Military spending, for example, is also a form of wealth redistribution. But no one seems to be angry about that. It’s always those “welfare queens”, the unemployed, the homeless, the elderly, etc, who have supposedly brought the U.S. economy to the problematic situation it is in today :rolleyes:. Some Republican candidates, such as Rick Santorum, have even gone out of their way to propose scrapping food stamps: thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/07/383788/santorum-we-dont-need-food-stamps-because-obesity-rates-are-so-high/

Already on this thread, some users have gone at length to try and change what the Pope has said to fit their own worldview. It reminds me of what Scripture says about those who have “itching ears” (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3) who only hear what they want to hear.

The Pope’s recent comments are not only perfectly in-line with Catholic social teaching; the recent comments pretty much reiterate the almost-universal consensus in the field of economics. Namely, that taxes must necessarily be progressive to cater for the poor and needy, to provide for a suitable social net, and to ensure the fruition of social mobility so people from less fortunate backgrounds can achieve their aspirations.
 
Nate13 said:
Who has been promoting a strict free market theology?
Click to expand...
It would have to be a promotion of strict free market ideology. Otherwise there wouldn’t be cause for alarm at the Pope using the term “wealth redistribution”. There wouldn’t be users here going at length to try and “soften”, if not even change, the Pope’s comments. What the Pope has said is really nothing new. Even in the days of Adam Smith (regarded as the “first” economist and promulgator of Capitalism), it was noted that society needs an adequate social net that could only come through a central authority - i.e. the government.
Nate13 said:
Do you just assume when someone refers to the free market they are referring to the extreme? Should I assume when you say social democracy you are referring to the extreme? America is a social democracy at this point, we are just less extreme of one than many countries in Europe. I for one am glad I don’t live in a country that has decide to take it upon itself to tax foods with little nutritional value in an attempt to help make decisions for people.
Click to expand...
I was actually a free-market economist myself :). My views started to shift more to economic orthodoxy when I noticed it had no resemblance to reality whatsoever. Free-market economics, for instance, can not explain away how negative externalities persist. There is a reason why serious economists overlook the nonsense exclaimed by free-markeeters: It doesn’t work. Studies have proven it time and again, either through debunking trickle-down economics or debunking the strong-efficient market hypothesis.

As for your comment on Europe about taxing foods with little nutritional value, that was only done in France fairly recently. As Americans say, this is really a case of “pot calling kettle black”. Contrary to what Europe does, the US actually takes it upon themselves to subsidize foods with little nutritional value. Many analysts have pointed out this is why poorer families tend to be more obese, and also why there is an obesity crisis in the US today. I wouldn’t laugh too quickly at Europe if I were you; if memory serves me correct, President Obama has either initiated, or is in the process of initiating, a kind of economic plan to reduce the level of salt intake throughout the nation. And it’s for the ultimate good too. Would you rather have a government take it upon itself to ensure its population remains obese, or would you rather a government took it upon itself to ensure its population is healthy, thereby reducing mortality rates from preventable diseases?
 
I would like to read the Holy Fathers complete writings on this issue. Simply put, redistribution requires you forcefully take from one persons labor and give it to another persons slothfulness. Redistribution is socialism / communism, and always ends in the slaughter of millions. Pope JPII and Reagan spent much of their efforts and teachings “tearing the wall down”.
 
I am still trying to find the actual speech to which the Post picked sections they wanted for their editorial. First Things is from 2006. Without the real context, I do not see how a judgement can be made. I note The Post saw fit not to document their information, as a real journalist would.
 
BB2 said:
It would have to be a promotion of strict free market ideology. Otherwise there wouldn’t be cause for alarm at the Pope using the term “wealth redistribution”. There wouldn’t be users here going at length to try and “soften”, if not even change, the Pope’s comments. What the Pope has said is really nothing new. Even in the days of Adam Smith (regarded as the “first” economist and promulgator of Capitalism), it was noted that society needs an adequate social net that could only come through a central authority - i.e. the government.

I was actually a free-market economist myself :). My views started to shift more to economic orthodoxy when I noticed it had no resemblance to reality whatsoever. Free-market economics, for instance, can not explain away how negative externalities persist. There is a reason why serious economists overlook the nonsense exclaimed by free-markeeters: It doesn’t work. Studies have proven it time and again, either through debunking trickle-down economics or debunking the strong-efficient market hypothesis.

As for your comment on Europe about taxing foods with little nutritional value, that was only done in France fairly recently. As Americans say, this is really a case of “pot calling kettle black”. Contrary to what Europe does, the US actually takes it upon themselves to subsidize foods with little nutritional value. Many analysts have pointed out this is why poorer families tend to be more obese, and also why there is an obesity crisis in the US today. I wouldn’t laugh too quickly at Europe if I were you; if memory serves me correct, President Obama has either initiated, or is in the process of initiating, a kind of economic plan to reduce the level of salt intake throughout the nation. And it’s for the ultimate good too. Would you rather have a government take it upon itself to ensure its population remains obese, or would you rather a government took it upon itself to ensure its population is healthy, thereby reducing mortality rates from preventable diseases?
Click to expand...
Many people don’t like the term “wealth-redistribution” because wealth is not “redistributed”. Wealth is either taxed, stolen, or given charitably. The pope calling for more “wealth redistribution” could be in reference to any of these although probably not stealing 😉 However, when used by left it is usually just a nice way of saying tax the rich more. I believe and other posts on here have shown that what the pope is calling for is more charitable giving.

Yes I’m aware of what Obama was trying to get done and it was not looked upon well by most people. I agree with making sure lunches for kids in school have healthy options, but adults need to be making their own decisions. This is just another case of the government trying to protect people from themselves. It’s somewhat ironic actually coming from a pro-choice president. If this is allowed is it ok if the government makes decision for women about their bodies?

However it is completely understandable that there would be a push to do this though considering under his plan we would have to be paying for everyone’s healthcare. I really don’t want to pay for the mistakes people make in getting obese, smoking, drinking too much, or having sex with lots of random people. We already have to pay for people who get STD’s after having sex with lots of random people through funding for places like Planned Parenthood and I would prefer not to have pay for people who choose to get obese and have all sorts of health problems. The healthcare law will give the government free reign to make laws to curb how we act in any part of our lives because any decision we make concerning our health will not only affect myself but everyone else in society as well since they have to pay for it. Thus the government can tell me I’m not allowed to eat a couple Twinkies a day because it will negatively affect my health, which everyone out there is paying for.
 
Betyourlife said:
I would like to read the Holy Fathers complete writings on this issue. Simply put, redistribution requires you forcefully take from one persons labor and give it to another persons slothfulness. Redistribution is socialism / communism, and always ends in the slaughter of millions. Pope JPII and Reagan spent much of their efforts and teachings “tearing the wall down”.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in my post above, military spending is also a form of wealth redistribution. In fact, all government spending is wealth redistribution, because the government has no financial resources of its own. A government must either print money, borrow money, or tax, to get the resources it needs. So if you deplore unemployment benefits/welfare, you must also equally deplore military spending.

Redistribution of wealth is not technically “force” nor stealing because of the principle of the social contract - in a state of nature, life is “solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short” to quote Thomas Hobbes. After all, Cain murdered Abel. If you want a picture of a libertarian society, picture Somalia. A government is formed by the people to maintain law and order, and it is therefore implicitly a given that a government taxes to ensure law and order is maintained. What is force is taxing beyond the “ideal” tax rate - but then again, such a political party that does such will quickly be removed by the democratic process in the next election.
 
pnewton said:
I am still trying to find the actual speech to which the Post picked sections they wanted for their editorial. First Things is from 2006. Without the real context, I do not see how a judgement can be made. I note The Post saw fit not to document their information, as a real journalist would.
Click to expand...
Here are his actual comments. I highly recommend you carefully read his full message for World Day of Peace, rather than the out of context distortions published by the secular media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top