Steve Bannon and U.S. ultra-conservatives take aim at Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You attract the ire of Bannon you must be doing something right
 
Quote from article:
Robert Sirico, the founder of the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank, considers Francis to be sympathetic to socialism.

“His dominant understanding of what business is is selfish and doing things to benefit only themselves rather than the poor,” said Sirico, who met Francis in 2013.
Click to expand...
 
Francis is a south american Pope. And his political views are shaped by that area. Western views are different. Capitalism and socialism and borders have a different history in south america. The Pope, as good as he may be, is not speaking the same political language as the west is.
 
Do some Cardinals say, have views similar to Bannon’s? It sounds like it.
 
Steve Bannon and Fr. Sirico’s Acton Institute are funded by the Koch Brothers and Exxon. Is it a wonder why they hate the writer of Laudato Si?
 
The article is quite slanted. The authors seem to be using the term “traditionalist” in an odd, and quite pejorative way. Their usage seems to imply that someone who holds to Sacred Tradition is wrong.

It is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, based on the teachings of Christ, that divorcing and remarrying another is a sin (Mark 10:11-12). So it is reasonable for someone who is in complete alignment with the teachings of the Church to need clarification if a statement is made that calls that teaching of Christ into question.

The authors refer to this as “attacks”.

@lynnvinc “Hate”? Really? Bannon and Fr. Sirico “hate” the Pope? Wish evil upon him? Really? Is seeking clarification hate?
 
Maxirad said:
Quote from article:
Robert Sirico, the founder of the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank, considers Francis to be sympathetic to socialism.

“His dominant understanding of what business is is selfish and doing things to benefit only themselves rather than the poor,” said Sirico, who met Francis in 2013.
Click to expand...
I’d respectfully suggest that any faithful Catholic shouldn’t be listening to someone like Sirico. For many reasons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Francis is a south american Pope. And his political views are shaped by that area. Western views are different. Capitalism and socialism and borders have a different history in south america. The Pope, as good as he may be, is not speaking the same political language as the west is.
Click to expand...
That’s a very good explanation.
 
I’ve seen other sources in the past, but here are some that pop up now on DesmogBlog:
I’m thinking both Fr. Sirico and Bannon and their various orgs are climate change denialists through their somewhat different lenses of ideology and that the oil industries seek out, find, and fund people and orgs that support CC denial for whatever reason.

So their dislike of Pope Francis probably does go beyond his stance on climate change (which is the same stance as BXVI and JPII over the past 30 years), but climate change denial would certainly factor into that dislike (and maybe their bid to get more oil industry funding).
 
Well, as long as “traditionalists” are pro-life in the fullest sense, including being against environmental harms that harm and kill people, like climate change, then I’m fine with traditionalists.

And I’m against divorce, so I guess I could be considered a traditionalist, but I can understand why someone would be sympathetic to the persons involved in divorce - love the sinner, hate the sin. And I know the annulment process can be very long and difficult. My nephew in India, who claims his marriage wasn’t even consummated (his ex-wife is not denying that), has been waiting over 15 years and still no annulment. Meanwhile after waiting 8 years he went on to remarry and have 2 children, but does not take communion. Very difficult. I don’t know what the solution is, but I highly respect Pope Francis and think he’ll do right.
 
lynnvinc said:
Well, as long as “traditionalists” are pro-life in the fullest sense, including being against environmental harms that harm and kill people, like climate change, then I’m fine with traditionalists.

And I’m against divorce, so I guess I could be considered a traditionalist, but I can understand why someone would be sympathetic to the persons involved in divorce - love the sinner, hate the sin. And I know the annulment process can be very long and difficult. My nephew in India, who claims his marriage wasn’t even consummated (his ex-wife is not denying that), has been waiting over 15 years and still no annulment. Meanwhile after waiting 8 years he went on to remarry and have 2 children, but does not take communion. Very difficult. I don’t know what the solution is, but I highly respect Pope Francis and think he’ll do right.
Click to expand...
I respect the Pope too. I do wish he would be more clear on topics in which some of his statements have caused confusion. Well formed Catholics shouldn’t have too much of an issue, but my experience has been very few Catholics are “well formed”. Pope Francis is bound by prior magisterial teaching…especially anything de Fide…like the words that left the mouth of our Lord.

I would recommend not falling into efforts to re-define “hate”. Disagreement does not equal hate.
 
gracepoole said:
I’d respectfully suggest that any faithful Catholic shouldn’t be listening to someone like Sirico. For many reasons.
Click to expand...
E. Michael Jones, admittedly a controversial figure in his own right, has basically been critical of Fr. Robert Sirico, pointing out Sirico’s homosexual past in the 2016 e-book The Man Behind the Curtain: Michael Voris and the Homosexual Vortex. I can’t say that Fr. Sirico has appeared on EWTN recently, but he has certainly appeared on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo many times.
 
Last edited:
First, as Catholics do we not believe that people can repent and with the grace of God, change?

And second, revealing what ought to be private without a good reason is calumny, which is a sin. If Fr Siroco has “a past” and it is in the past, then there is no point in revealing it when we are discussing politics.
 
I would like to say to everyone here that vilification of people for unpopular views is what causes us to be so divided. Thinking that someone who holds a certain view is evil and therefore dismissing them is not the way to respond, any more than it would be if we met a person who believes differently in the religious sphere.

Furthermore, pushing all those who slightly disagree with a certain position out of the conversation practically pushes them into the arms of those with more extreme views, since they feel they have nowhere else to go.

We seem to have a lot of people doing their best to divide us. Let’s stop adding to the division.
 
So are you generally supportive of the views advocated by Siroco and Bannon?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know enough about either of them to say. I have read stuff in the news which I am not convinced is accurate.

However, what I find is that dialoguing with people whose ideas differ from mine is more helpful and less divisive than thinking they are soooooo evil and saying nasty things about them.

For example, the only example the poster who dislikes Bannon’s ideas about immigration came up with did not say what the poster purported as Bannon’s ideas.

I believe we should guard our borders to keep bad guys, drugs, etc., out. I believe we need to overhaul our immigration policies, taking into account those who are already here.

If I were to meet Bannon (highly unlikely!), I would ask what his ideas were and why he held them. Maybe I would learn something. Maybe he would. But if I were to refuse to speak with him because of what I have read about his ideas in the press, I would join those who want to isolate him, which just means he gets no pushback, if he needs some.
 
So are you generally denying my right to have an opinion other than yours?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top