How do we feel about his tenure as pope? do you think he was a force for good and pushed the church in the right direction, or was it all in vain? what will happen going forward?
right after easter as well. rest in peace.
https://www.reuters.com/world/pope-francis-has-died-vatican-says-video-statement-2025-04-21/>>2235370That guy is super reactionary. He was close with Benedikt XVI but even Benedikt wasn't as far on the right as Sarah.
>>2235364I'm neither catholic nor religious (though baptized & confirmed Lutheran) however the Catholic Church has 1.5 billion members so their boss does have a lot of influence.
Pope Francis was a reasonably good pope from a leftist perspective.
>>2235392the church is more irrelevant than ever, who gaf
>the literal pope is good "from a leftist perspective"leftists are a bigger enemy of communism than fascists i swear…
>>2235477>>2235478>>2235480samefag
reported for trolling and derailment
>>2235489>I genuinely don’t see the Catholic faith dying in the near futurelol its deader than ever
>so the least a “progressive” pope can do is to at least challenge the rigid system in some waythey arent challenging jack shit and in fact are just leeching off actual progressives to desperately get people to join the church lmao
>>2235366Francis stacked the vatican with progressives. 80% of the cardinals are aligned with him. So unless massive backstabbing, the next pope will be
judeobolshevik woke too.
>>2235469>>2235451>the Pope got assassinated<proof?>it happened once a long time ago<and?>well that's itSchizos are never not hilarious.
>>2235496Who the fuck cares? Both sides are anticommunists regardless.
>>2235499You're so stupid you don't even understand the propagandistic utility of such an event. Depending on what the Vatican claims was the cause of death and how shady it looks it can forever be cited as an example of Vatican corruption to drive a wedge between Catholics. But the problem is you are below 100 i . q. and can't even grasp such a notion and instead celebrate without taking advantage.
Communism in the West is dead because of people like you. So confident with nothing backing it up. Pure emptiness in your head.
>>2235507>>2235508the catholic population in the world is 1.4 billion if you claim that they don't matter you are beyond retarded but actually mentally impaired to the extent that you probably need others to feed you.
you are useless and would be useless under socialism as well.
>>2235516>>2235502>69 years oldNo way, he'd be in charge for more than 2 decades. They elected Francis because they thought he'd die young as he had a chronic lung disease
My money is on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sarah >>2235520>muh optics of posting on a niche imageboardlol religious losers are fucking hysterical
>>2235521>Lenin classified the petite bourgeoisie as required in the construction of socialismLMFAO lenin never appeased the petit bourgeois by catering to their whims you braindead faggot
>>2235523so you aren't taking your line from any organization but making it up on the spot because this is a matter of opinions to you
and you are calling people petite bourgeois
>>2235521People just say anything that can be proven wrong with a single google search.
Lenin was clear that whatever alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry was a temporary one, aimed at the establishment of democracy and the republic. Once this phase of the revolution had been completed, their class differences reasserted themselves.
>>2235426Had to stop
CHYNA‘s influence in the Vatican.
>>2235399He was a strong advocate of social-democracy
>>2235366The next pope will either be an anti-Islam german or an anti-Islam sub-Saharan African. see
>>2235544>>2235424Chairman Xi will appoint a Chinese Pope first and then the Church will wither away
>>2235448 Comrade Vance did it. Another success of the MAGA Communists in destroying superstition
>>2235451>>2235475>>2235493His Holiness The Pope, the Successor of Peter, couldn't have been murdered because he's protected by GOD, read some theory ffs
>>2235401He said the polar opposite of "being trans if fine" he compared trans people being trans to the atomic bomb, which sound hard but he didnt mean it as a compliment.
He was only pro-trans in the degenerated mind of chuds. He just support social democracy and the ethnic replacement of secularized europeans by religious foreigners.
>>2235611>>2235610Why do you ridiculous faggots have to decide to jump and entertain them whenever you see a /pol/ack?
Can you not just grow the fuck up?
>>2235348I smile at dead pedophile ringleaders.
S
>>2235635It's honestly the next logical step for the church. They're deader than ever going full jesuit and playing it up to the progressive crowd and sexual minorities who will forever hate them. If church attendance is important to them, they'll go back to what they know and take advantage of a more reactionary public and try to get converts from other "cuckening" denominations like southern baptist.
The days of them creating new christians are over, so all they can do is poach off others
>>2235679>Communists<You know the Church is reactionary but the late pope was kinda progressive in some ways>Rightoid tradcaths, evangelicals, born-again-xstians<The filthy demon will burn in hellReally makes you think
>>2235612You want /pol/fugees to spew their reactionary brainrot unopposed, thus making it seem like we collectively agree with what they're saying?
Ineteresting how this site was all about maga commumism and how trump is secretly based and such, and that's fine, but this? We gotta be 14 year old edge lords for this.
>>2235700Maybe having a humanist Pope is a good thing? Mah wr shoiod bomb the vatican bc im the smartest person here!
>>2235732>Ineteresting how this site was all about maga commumism and how trump is secretly based and such, and that's fineHuh, is that why it's banned on sight? Disingenuous faggot.
<proceeds to defend the popeAnarchists truly are only about vibes.
>>2235700very retarded how nobody can just accept the blessing that he was. obviously the institution itself is rotten by marxist standards, but the figurehead for over a billion people being a progressive figure is a godsend compared to whats probably about to come. cardinal sarah complaining about immigration ruining the west, but not mentioning the underlying western cause, is a pretty bad omen.
>>2235756the average nazi was, yeah. they were big on luther for a reason. protestant doctrine of sola scriptura and predestination is one step away from social darwinism so it fits perfectly. the occult shit was more of an end goal for the intelligentsia.
>>2235741>pushing the undivided church meme in 2025really man?
>>2235821>the average nazi was, yeah. they were big on luther for a reason. protestant doctrine of sola scriptura and predestination is one step away from social darwinism so it fits perfectly. the occult shit was more of an end goal for the intelligentsia.NTA but you're right about the protestant element, it also helped obviously that luther was german but more importantly the whole "nazis were occultists/atheists/pantheists" is cultivated in part because it deflects (protestant) christian culpability for these atrocities and their basis in them.
>>2235741very retarded how nobody can just accept the blessing that he was. obviously the institution itself is rotten by marxist standards, but the figurehead for over a billion people being a progressive figure is a godsend compared to whats probably about to come
This. Francis was our guy in the Vatican and rightoids still seethe about that.
>>2235877he's going in for a kiss :^)
>>2235722prince said that once, i think
>>2235703that's not when going on
>>2235709>peddled the opium that is religionbased
>>2235907>He didn't shield them like his predecessors.Yes he did you lying christofaggot nonce.
I hope you die violently.
>>2235528You realize there are reactionary unions, right?
t. union rep
>>2235571*pizza nonsense
I am not joking that's the actual correct translation
>>2235960>When compared to Chinletism, how can Marxists compete?You jest but I think they are doing a lot better. Unlike Marxists, chuds aren't chained to 1 sociologist/economist. You can be a transcendental idealist and a chud or an atheist and a chud. You can be a chud Kantian. Marxists are the only group I know (besides the press) who still use newspapers, reject everything new, and live in the past. The average commie is as much of an autistic larper as the average poltard or tradcath. There's a reason chuds are all over the internet and Marxoids fester in their little hidey holes like ass bacteria. Chuds don't use newspapers, they have online media, botnets, and mass spamming techniques while leftoids hang out on street corners handing out paper because of their insufferable desire to larp as Bolsheviks. You people are stuck in the past while the chuds aren't and that's why they are winning.
>>2235425Yeah, there's no point having the Papacy in Europe. Whites don't have a religious bone in their body. They worship money and sex and getting the latest iPhone with the M5 chip. Those people are spiritual equivalent of cancer cells and saving them is like trying to save a terminal AIDS patient. But where do you move the Papacy to? Euros and Americans have spent so many years wrecking the 3rd world, there aren't many prestigious cities with the infrastructure capable of hosting the Papacy. I guess move it to Rio is the only option.
>>2236073Love how the resident MAGAcel finally admits what everyone knew all along.
>who still use newspapers, reject everything new, and live in the past.No.
>There's a reason chuds are all over the internet and Marxoids fester in their little hidey holes like ass bacteria. Step outside your little twitter/8kun/8ch.moe bubble and realize average people think you're freaks.
Go ahead, tell your co-workers you believe hitler did nothing wrong and start openly ranting about ***gers.
This book has been recommended by various popes. It was written in 1907 including the one that died now
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_WorldIn early 21st-century London, priests Percy Franklin and John Francis visit the elderly Mr. Templeton. A Catholic and former Conservative Member of Parliament who witnessed the marginalisation of his religion and the destruction of his party, Templeton describes to the two priests the last century of British and world history.
The British Empire is now a single party state. The British Royal Family has been deposed, the House of Lords abolished, and Oxford and Cambridge universities closed down. Marxism, atheism, and secular humanism dominate culture and politics. The Church of England has been disestablished and, like all forms of Protestantism, is almost extinct. The world now has only three main religious forces: Catholicism, secular humanism, and "the Eastern religions".
The world has been divided into three power-blocs: a European Confederation of Marxist one-party states and their colonies in Africa; the "Eastern Empire", whose emperor descends from the Japanese and Chinese imperial families; and the "American Republic", consisting of North and South America. The European Confederation and Eastern Empire are now on the brink of war.
>>2235360Not a Christcuck, but I would just reject the Pope's ideology and go full sede-vacante or pro-China, as China has its autocephaly in the Catholic Church, just like the Francis-era right-wing dissidents did (they either became sede-vacante or became pro-Russia).
In any case, it will further divide the Catholic Church, and I am all for that.
>>2236395he wasnt on the correct side of anything you dumb fuck
>although he wanted to change the baseyeah more charity and welfare just like the average politician everywhere
>>2236384>>2236395>froggiacineHahaha I had completely forgotten about this.
Even under a completely liberal framework the idiots defending him ITT are retarded.
>>2236405If that is true,
chud pope alert!
The Catholic Church is returning to the old evil ways, more people should see this.
>>2236429The Catholic Church in any form is the enemy.
They have always supported the enemies of revolutions around the world. That is why the further division and destruction of the Catholic Church is exciting news to me, if it is true, of course.
Sorry if I did not get my point across.
>>2235348He wasn’t perfect, but he was one of the best Popes as far as Popes go.
The fact that he made trad Cath zoomers seethe with his relatively progressive stances is enough to make me respect him for that.
>>2236445->
>>2236384
>relatively progressiveRelative compared to Hitler maybe.
>>2236412can't wait for nazis to call critics racist
>>2236488cursed dubs
>>2236597→
>>2235854>>2236596>im more marxist than Fidel Castro!!!LMAO
>>2236606>Fidel Castro wasn't even a marxisthttps://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1961/12/02.htm"I Believe Absolutely in Marxism!
In my student years I had studied the Communist Manifesto and selected works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Of course, it is very interesting to reread now the things I read at that time. Well, now, do I believe in Marxism? I believe absolutely in Marxism! Did I believe on the first of January? I believed on the first of January Did I believe on the 26th of July? I believed on the 26th of July! Did I understand it as I do today, after almost ten years of struggle? No, I did not understand it as I do today. Comparing what I understood then with what I understand today, there is a great difference. Did I have prejudices? Yes, I had prejudices on the 26th of July, yes. Could I have been called a thoroughgoing revolutionary on the 26th of July? No, I could not have been called a thoroughgoing revolutionary. Could I have been called a thoroughgoing revolutionary on the first of January? No, I could have been called almost a thoroughgoing revolutionary. Could I be called a thoroughgoing revolutionary today? That would mean that I feel sati fled with what I know and, of course, I am not satisfied. Do I have any doubt about Marxism and do I feel that certain interpretations were wrong and have to be revised? No, I do not have the slightest doubt!"
>>2236447I'm pretty sure Hitler killed and expressed no remorse communists, never made apologies for past injustices committed by imperialist forebearers, never comforted victims of genocide, and knowingly looked at capitalists for inspiration of his empire building.
I won't deny Pope Francis has a lot to answer for selling leftists out to the Argentinian dictatorship- whatever judgement he may recieve from the man upstairs is far from anyone's control. But it's very clear that later in life he was staunchly anti-capitalist and at the very least sympathetic to socialism. As seen here:
>>2236063 I would argue the man was far from an ally, but he was certainly not an enemy.
>>2236652>Tagle is next; there's roughly a 70% chance the next pope will be Liberation Theology.Praying this is the case, but given that we know that CIA operatives were
and most likely are active in the vatican, they're probs going to coup Tagle.
https://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/03/the-alliance-between-the-cia-and-the-vatican/ >>2236663I know, the wording is rather unscientific, he probably tries to get the attention of the interviewer and to emphasize the commitment to the ideology by rhetorical means. Should not be taken as a theoretical work, but as a biographical excerpt.
Therefore, by his own admission.
>>2236663Considering what counts as "liberal" by this sites standards, you're not exactly disproving him.
Especially when the whole crux of your argument was "Castro wasn't even a Marxist- not even by his own admission" and are now getting booty-blasted at the delivery of his speech and reducing your position down to semantics. How about we look at speech he made one the 2nd of December 1961- 2 years after the revolution.
https://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1961/12/02.htm
<HAVANA, Dec. 2 (AP) – Declaring he is a Marxist-Leninist opposed to the personality cult, Fidel Castro said today 'the world is on the road toward communism' and he is taking Cuba down that path… Castro said that as a student at Havana University he was not a Marxist because he was 'influenced by imperialist and reactionary propaganda against the Communists. "
>That would mean that I feel sati fled with what I know and, of course, I am not satisfied. Do I have any doubt about Marxism and do I feel that certain interpretations were wrong and have to be revised? No, I do not have the slightest doubt!
>What occurs to me is precisely the opposite: the more experience we gain from life, the more we learn what imperialism is – and not by word, but in the flesh and blood of our people – the more we have to face up to that imperialism; the more we learn about imperialist policies throughout the world, in South Vietnam, in the Congo, in Algeria, in Korea, everywhere in the world; the more we dig deeper and uncover the bloody claws of imperialism, the miserable exploitation, the abuse they commit in the world, the crimes they commit against humanity, the more, in the first place, we feel sentimentally Marxist, emotionally Marxist, and the more we see and discover all the truths contained in the doctrine of Marxism. The more we have to face the reality of a revolution and the class struggle, and we see what the class struggle really is, in the setting of a revolution, the more convinced we become of all of the truths Marx and Engels Wrote and the truly ingenious interpretations of scientific socialism Lenin made.
>And Marx's work by itself – and this is the fullest proof of the scientific value, of the theoretical value, of the real value of a revolutionary doctrine – the fact that it showed the way by itself, for when all the most advanced workers, the most progressive intellectuals, began to search through everything that had been written on socialism, they rejected all other socialist theories as lacking a sound basis, as lacking a scientific character, and adopted the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. After the death of Marx, Engels undertook to steer the thought… One must keep in mind that Engels was a great thinker, too, but that Engels sacrificed his own intellectual work, because Marx was so poor and lived in such misery and hunger and under such terrible conditions that he saw his children die of hunger, that Engels who knew Marx's genius better than anyone else stuck to working as a merchant simply so that Marx could write Capital, on which he had been working for twenty years. It was one of the most noble, most self-denying and most beautiful lives; and one of the most altruistic sacrifices ever made was the sacrifice Engels made for Marx.
>But it wasn't enough that the European labor movement had a revolutionary theory; this theory needed interpretation and so there came a period when the influence of non-revolutionary thought, of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois ideology tried to distort Marx's thought. What is Lenin's great merit? Well, simply that he takes Marx's thought, defends it against all mystification, against all forms of revisionism, against all of the revisions and changes they wanted to make in the thinking of Marx. Armed only with theory, he forms a party, struggles within that party against all petit bourgeois currents, against all non-revolutionary currents, triumphs over these currents in the party and, with a revolutionary theory, seizes power. That is to say, he wins revolutionary power. What is Lenin's great merit? Lenin has the extraordinary merit of having made a thoroughgoing interpretation of Marx's thought, of having carried it into practice and having developed it under new circumstances, as is the case of a revolutionary party in power. That he developed an entire theory, thought of extraordinary depth, there is not the slightest doubt. That is Lenin's great historical merit as theoretician and leader.
>Marxism is continuing to develop. Now, one has only to read Khrushchev's report to the 22nd Congress, which is a wholly political treatise, one that begins to confront an entirely new task, the building of communism. Marx did not say how to set up a socialist regime or society. Marx did not say how to build a socialist society. Marx interpreted the laws of history, made a correct interpretation, studied the nature of class society, developed a whole revolutionary theory by virtue of which he explained history through the development of means of production. He studied history through the systems of production which in turn develop relationships of production. These little words, I warn you, are quite hard to understand when one begins to study Marxism – means of production, system of production, relationships of production – but they can be explained perfectly through practical examples. He interprets history, for until then, history was a mass of interpretations.
>Some gave a divine interpretation to history. They said: history develops in accordance with supernatural designs, in accord with the designs of God. Others said that men make history and that men who made history were individuals like Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon. There were racial theories of history, claiming that race was the determining factor of history. A series of anti-scientific theories. A series of absurd theories. Then Marx says: no, history is not made by the divinity, not made by races. History is a process of development, determined by the material conditions of production. In other words, he's come to believe in Lenin's and Marx's analysis on imperialism and capitalism and what socialism can do for the masses. So no shit of course he "believes in Marxism".
but let's continue…
(1/???)
>>2236674>In the stage of primitive communism, there are neither exploiters nor exploited; property is held in common; and some social groups still live under primitive communism in some parts of the world. I have to laugh, because at times some comrades want to make such a great leap ahead as to land in primitive communism. Yet, it is fitting that we learn to appreciate this difference in order to distinguish between primitive communism and the communism the Soviet Union is planning for. What is the difference? Simply this, the fundamental, the big and outstanding difference is that the former was a communism of poverty, an elemental life of poverty and scarcity among men which corresponded to their means of production. The means of production, techniques of production, of cultivation, the first accumulations of capital develop. This further develops, as a consequence, the private appropriation of the means of production and of land, (domestic) animals, of farming tools. A new mode of production, new relations of production consequently arise as the means of production develop.
>Private owners appear on the scene: private owners of livestock and farming implements, of land, and also, as a means of production, of men themselves.
>The second social system (in the history) of man was the system of slavery, of slave labor; very simple, very rudimentary; more advanced, much more advanced, of course, than the techniques of labors in the stage of primitive communism. So, the system of slavery spread. This is the system that characterizes that whole epoch of mankind, of the history of Greece especially, of Rome. The whole Roman Empire developed with that social system as a base. Men were then divided into slave-owners, the masters… There were classes that had no political rights, but had certain civil rights; for example, in Rome, the plebians, as well as the slaves.
>Everyone knows the history of the struggles of those classes to free themselves – the history of the slaves and their uprisings so shake off the yoke of slavery. The slaves managed to rise up, and developed a great movement all over Italy, opposed to Roman power. They placed the power of Rome in jeopardy, founded cities, even organized a nation of slaves. In the long run, their revolution was smashed.
>(We have) the movements of the plebians with the Gracchi, demanding their rights from the Roman patricians who had economic rights and political rights. Eventually, the system of slavery is superceded, replaced by a system which was a little more benign, but nonetheless still cruel and still a system of exploitation, coming into being as the Roman Empire fell apart: the system of feudalism..
>Under feudalism individuals were not slaves, but were semi-slaves, dependent on the feudal lords, who owned the land. They worked part of the time on their own land, part on the lands of their masters, a situation that does not really differ much from that of some peasants today, who work on the land of their landlords and have to turn over half the crop to him, and, in addition, have to supply their own tools and seed.
>And that medieval system corresponded to the Middle Ages, was based on the system of serfdom. Men were dependent on a few lords, on the land; when those holdings passed to the hands of other lords of the nobility or of the feudal aristocracy, the peasants changed hands with them. Again, this is not much different from what happens in some countries, like Peru, where latifundias are still sold with the Indians on them.The Bourgeoisie
>Now a new class emerges, but who? The manufacturers, the traders, the merchants make their appearance. Where do the traders and merchants set up shop? In the towns, in the villages. As a result, they begin to develop industry, trade. But this trade finds itself bound in shackles. What shackles? I don't see any shackles… What shackles do they find? They find all the shackles of feudalism. What were these, shackles? A whole array of taxes, complete insecurity. When merchandise leaves a town, goes from one village to another, from one medieval burg to another, they have to pay a whole series of tolls. You can imagine what happened with goods from the Near East, from those countries to Italy: spices, perfumes, gold, and things like that, that had to reach France and pass through a hundred feudal lords, a hundred practically different states that did have, it is true, some fealty, some weak bonds, in the first stage of feudalism, to the power of a king, of an absolute monarch.
>This new social class coming to the fore, that is, the class of traders and merchants, very rudimentary, to be sure, begins to build up the economy, to accumulate wealth, and begins to clash with the existing relations of production. That is, the existing social relations, the superstructure – so they call it technically in Lionel's classes – the economic structure begins to conflict with the social superstructure. The economic structure of the emerging class comes up against all that framework that was a real hindrance to its growth. That social class then begins to fight for a whole series of rights. It undertakes a long struggle. The new class kept winning such rights in the various countries of Europe. In some cases, the movement culminated in a bloody revolution, in others in less bloody revolution, in still others in a transformation, but the indisputable fact is that the problem was the same in all countries. That is, this rising social class, the bourgeoisie – and that is where the word "bourgeoisie" stems from – appeared everywhere, in France, in Germany, in England, in Italy. It had no political rights, it represented different interests from the interests of the nobles and the aristocracy that ruled those countries. It began the struggle against the aristocracy, and then two social classes became locked in struggle: the nobility versus the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie came out on top, as it inevitably had to.
>How did it triumph? In France, through a bloody and violent struggle. First, national states were set up, developing in a way parallel with the absolute monarchy, an absolute monarchy resting on a feudal basis, as in France. The bourgeoisie had to break with the existing social system, had to destroy all those feudal shackles. It is then that the French Revolution occurred, in the course of which, this social class, having burst through all the bonds of feudalism, developed, and a new social system was established. Under new conditions, that new system began to develop all the forces it was capable of developing: an extraordinary development of technique, of production, a significant step forward from the previous system.The Proletariat
>It triumphed in other countries as well, without overthrowing the monarchy; instead, converting the absolute monarchies into monarchies resting on a bourgeois base. In other words, it was all the same to the bourgeois whether there was a republic or a monarchy. What really mattered was to eliminate the existing feudal obstacles to the development of the new system, of the new social class, of the new productive forces. Then national states were set up, the ideal of that class, a vast market it could sell to.
>I have been explaining all this pretty much in my own way, without the elegance of the teachers of the School of Instruction. These were the things that Marx discovered. He discovered that a new social class arises at the same time: the proletariat.
>Where does the proletariat arise from? Precisely, from the development of all the means of production. Factories arise. Textile weavers gradually disappear from the scene (cotton industry) and are now concentrated in the workshops; new techniques of production lead to a steadily increasing concentration of the means of production into few hands. The workers begin to form associations and the new class begins to take form, centered, where? Around the factory. Marx discovers that all these factories would keep on developing, and that the process of concentration of property was going to continue, that the small proprietors or small industrialists were going to be ruined, and that an increasingly powerful working class would develop.
>But at the same time that this capitalist system has given rise to the bourgeoisie, it becomes transformed – as happened to feudalism in its time. Feudalism became an obstacle to the development of society in its opposition to the emergent class. So capitalism, in turn, becomes an obstacle. What, then, are the characteristics of the capitalist mode of production? Waste in production, lack of planning, competition, squandering, failure to utilize all the technical resources mankind has developed to produce the goods that men need.
>By that time in history there were already a number of socialist thinkers who were writing that "We must have socialism." But why should there be socialism? "Because I like it and it seems good to me, and all the workers would want it." Others gave different reasons and advanced a series of hypotheses.So here we have Castro talking about Marx's analysis of history of class struggle and stating that he agrees with this analysis, but surely he's still your run of the mill lib because he "believes" right?
(2/???)
>>2236676>>2236677From the same speech btw.
But clearly Castro is just operating on Marxist analysis on vibes, I mean it'd be weird if he dedicated an entire segment of the speech to scientific socialism right?
Oh wait…
>What is the historical merit of Marx? Marx writes something, a correct interpretation of what was going to happen, not simply because people wanted it, but because the very laws of historical evolution predetermined it. This is the great merit of Marx, the founder of scientific socialism which gives the working class a theory.
>They interpreted the laws, studied the conditions at a given moment. Marx did not claim to be a fortune-teller. Once they asked him what it would be like once communism was established. He said that he had no crystal ball. He interpreted the laws, gave the labor movement a scientific theory. The theory was developed. The first revolutionary workers' movement came to power in the Soviet Union armed with that theory, the theory continued to develop, and the Soviet Union develops a long experience. What experience?
>The experience of building the world's first socialist state.
>One should bear in mind that this experience is of incalculable value for humanity. When they developed, initiated and carried out the building of the first socialist state, they were taking a path entirely new to humanity, just as they are today advancing along another entirely new road: the building of communist society.
>This tells us one thing: simply, that Marxism is a living science, a developing science. We have to study everything that Marx taught, but at the same time we have to study everything that Lenin taught, we have to study the entire experience derived from the building of the first communist society.
>There is a question: when the Bolshevik party of the Soviet Union started out to build the first socialist state, what was involved was simply giving reality to a political theory, a revolutionary theory. Humanity stands today before the reality that this theory has been put into practice. What are the results of the application of that theory? What is it that no one can argue against today? Only the imperialists still argue against the facts and I don't think they themselves are sure of their ground.
>Socialism is no longer something new to mankind. Socialism is a reality for mankind. But this reality is contained in numbers, in the statistics of the Soviet Union, in the figures comparing the difference between the old Russia of 1913 and the Soviet Union of today. The development and growth of production, the radical change in all aspects of the life of the Soviet people, and what they are today, and the foundations for further development which the Soviet Union has available today. Even during the first five-year plans of the Soviet Union, they were experimenting, just starting to learn something about planning and acquiring experience. Today, they're working at the same program, but from the perspective of 20 years, with a great deal of experience and certainty. No one can doubt that they'll carry out the program they've outlined because the men carrying the job forward have an apprenticeship of forty years in managing the economy, in planning the economy, in building socialist society. And the figures already demonstrate unequivocally the victory of socialism over capitalism and over imperialism.
>This means it takes much less merit to be a socialist today, to build a socialist society, than to have been a socialist when there was no socialist state anywhere in the world yet, and the experience of life and reality had not yet taught and had not submitted the implementation of that theory to proof.
>The building of socialism follows a well-beaten path by now. This doesn't mean that conditions are exactly the same in all countries, that socialism has to be built in exactly the same way in every country or that we have to copy rigidly the way it was done. Certainly not! Every country has its own peculiarities, and each country has to tailor its program, and its methods, and tactics to its own peculiar features. That is what we have to do…
>But there do exist some common experiences of immense value, just as in medicine, in astronomy, in physics, there are truths already proved by historical fact, and we have the advantage of being able to rely on all this experience and all these acquired techniques as we build a socialist society. This is, of course, easy enough to say. In practice, however, the job is somewhat difficult. So much for "just vibes". Now if you want to go into fact checking Fidel in regards to Paris Commune, you won't hear any disagreement from me there, but to act as if his belief in Marxism is purely "vibes based" is factually wrong.
But let's keep going on
with the same speech (3/???)
>>2236680>And, surmounting all those conditions, it reached the present stage. Nobody will dare challenge the extraordinary technical, cultural and scientific progress made by the Soviet Union. I feel that it would be an absurdity and folly only of the blind, not to see that in the scientific field, the Soviet Union has completely surpassed all capitalist countries. In the technical and educational sphere, it suffices to say, for example, that three times as many engineers are studying in the Soviet Union than in the United States. In housing, the Soviet Union is at present the world leader. It has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world. And the average life span is increasing at the fastest rate in the Soviet Union. All this holds true now at this stage and in the wake of all these vicissitudes.
>In other words, one thing has been definitely proved: the reality of history has fully demonstrated, has confirmed the doctrine of Marxism and Leninism. Socialist construction promotes an incomparably greater progress in society than does capitalism. The United States is growing at an annual rate of 2.3 or 2.5 percent; the Soviet Union, at an annual rate of 10 or 11 percent. So that in twenty years' time the Soviet Union will have surpassed with something to spare, total United States production, and in per capita production, will have surpassed the United States at an even earlier date.
>Can the United States win in that competition? Can they compete with the socialist countries? Not at all! They would have to give up capitalism to do it. They would have to give up private ownership of the means of production, private control of the circulation of finance capital, private ownership of land, and transportation. They would simply have to set up a socialist system. They would have to tell the American millionaires: "There'll be no more throwing money around." They would have to tell all the American millionaires: "No more underutilization of capital, no more unemployment; we'll use all the means of production achieved by technology here, all the factories that have been built, and we'll manage the economy of the country, we'll plan it, and plan its development, and we'll build the plants we don't have." The only way they will be able to compete with the Soviet Union is with a planned economy, with rational investment of the entire national income – there is no other way.
>In other words, the only way out for the United States is to cease being imperialist and capitalist and become socialist. This is the truth. To understand this now, at a time when we have the opportunity to read, to study and to appreciate all these facts is of no particular merit. The absurd thing about it is that people should be so fenced in by a curtain of lies and prejudices that they are unaware of things that are basic historical truths.
>It is fairly easy and quite simple for our people to understand these things today. All the more so, since the capitalist system of production has reached its highest stage, the phase of imperialism, of colonialism, of exploitation of all peoples, creating starvation and misery. Where do colonial wars take place today? In the Portuguese and French colonies. Where do we see discrimination, persecution, hunger, poverty, cultural backwardness, all this? In the colonies, in colonized countries, in countries exploited by imperialism.Well how about that, Castro's belief in socialism is not only founded on the analysis and teachings of Marx and Lenin but by the achievements made by the Soviet Union! But clearly this is "all just vibes" and Castro "still isn't a Marxist"…
But let's continue
with the same speech (4/???)
>>2236682>For anyone who does not see that our country had to choose between two policies: either the policy of capitalism, the policy of imperialism, or the anti-imperialist policy, the policy of socialism, we must point out that there are no middle roads between capitalism and socialism. Those who persist in thinking they can find some third positions have fallen into a really false and really utopian position. This would be equivalent to blindfolding oneself, it would mean becoming an accomplice of imperialism. It is perfectly understandable that anyone who remains indifferent to the struggle of the Algerians is an accomplice of French imperialism. Whoever remains indifferent to Yankee intervention in Santo Domingo is an accomplice of that Yankee intervention in Santo Domingo. Whoever remains aloof from the persecution unleashed by the traitor Romulo Betancourt against the workers and students of Venezuela, those same workers and students of Venezuela who are defending us, is an accomplice of that oppression. Whoever remains indifferent to Franco in Spain, to German rearmament, to the German warmongers, the Nazi officers who are today rearmed and even demanding thermonuclear weapons; whoever remains indifferent to what is happening in South Vietnam, to what is happening in the Congo, to what is happening in Angola, whoever remains indifferent and seeks to adopt some third position in the face of those facts, is not really adopting a third position, but is adopting a position of virtual complicity with imperialism.…
>In other words, either the Revolution was not revolution or there had to be a betrayal. The Revolution had to choose between both these terms: betrayal or revolution.And we who remember the men who have died for this Revolution, who remember our fallen comrades, as any revolutionary remembers those who fell, from Guiteras, from Martinez Villena – although Martinez Villena actually did not die murdered, but died as a result of the disaster of that fight – of Melia, all those revolutionaries. They who thought not of the revolutionaries of today, they who thought of Marti, Marti who also had a brilliant vision.
>What is the merit of Marti, what makes us admire Marti? Was Marti a Marxist-Leninist? No, Marti was not a Marxist-Leninist. Marti said of Marx that since he placed himself on the side 01 the poor, he had all his sympathies.
>Because the Revolution of Cuba was a revolution of national liberation against Spanish colonial power; it was not a revolution that was a social struggle; it was a struggle for national independence first. And even at that time, at that time Marti said of Marx: "Since he placed himself on the side of the poor, he deserves my respect." ….
>And some people tried to say that all were dying just so that this system of exploitation could go on, so that a thousand families could go on living like princes in our capitals and in our cities, so that this system of exploitation, of starvation, of poverty, of discrimination, of social abuses, could continue. Some tried to say that. They seemed to believe that the Revolution would do nothing to change that. There were some who, at the last minute, even bought up some bonds and did a few little things, with that in mind. How mistaken they were: How mistaken they were who thought that certain achievements our country had made and had aimed at from as far back as the war of 1895 were going to remain unfulfilled and that things would continue in the same old way.
>It is obvious that this honest line, this revolutionary line, this line which marches in step with history, in harmony with the feelings and interests of underdeveloped and exploited peoples everywhere in accord with national interests and national honor, is not an easy policy to pursue. It necessarily had to be a policy of sacrifices, since, if we wanted to redeem our people from illiteracy and a low cultural level, from unemployment, from hunger and poverty, if we really wanted to develop our economy, to manage our own economy, an independent economy, and along with an independent economy, an independent policy that would wipe out unemployment and illiteracy, poverty and backwardness, misery and ignorance, sickness, and the unhappy situation in which most of our people were living, we had no other choice than to pursue a consistently revolutionary line. Had we not done so, we would not have been able to do what we have done. To do it meant that we had to brave imperialism with all its power. That is what we have done. So Castro is analysing history and anti-imperialism through a Marxist lens… but this is all just
vibes and not in keeping with Marxist analysis, at least according to the so-called "anti-libs" of leftypol…
But let's keep on reading and analysing
the same speech (5/???)
>>2236685>This is the path that the Revolution had to follow: the path of anti-imperialism and the path of socialism, that is, the path of nationalization of all the big industries, nationalization of big business, nationalization and social ownership of the basic means of production; a path of planned development of our economy at a pace that our resources permit, and that the aid we are receiving from abroad permits. Another truly favorable thing for our Revolution has been the fact that we have been able to count on the aid and solidarity which have enabled us to carry our Revolution forward without the enormous sacrifices that other peoples have had to make.
>The Revolution had to be anti-imperialist and socialist. Good. There could have been only one anti-imperialist and socialist Revolution, because there is but one revolution. And that is the great dialectical truth of mankind: imperialism, and imperialism versus socialism. The result of this: the victory of socialism, the triumph of the epoch of socialism, the overcoming of the stage of capitalism and imperialism, the establishment of the era of social ism, and later on the era of communism. No one need be scared by that; here won't be any communism – I'm saying this for any anti-communists left out there – there won't be any communism for at least thirty years.
>Just so even our enemies will get to understand what Marxism is. In a nutshell, simply, remember that you just cannot skip over an entire historical stage. Perhaps, today, some underdeveloped countries can skip over the stage of building capitalism, that is, they can start developing the economy of a country through planning and along the path of socialism, but they cannot skip over the stage of socialism. The Soviet Union, itself, after forty years, is just beginning to build communism and hopes to have made considerable progress in this area at the end of twenty years. Thus, we are in a stage of the building of socialism.
>What is the socialism we have to apply here? Utopian socialism? We simply have to apply scientific socialism. That is why I began by saying with complete frankness that we believe in Marxism, that we believe it is the most correct, the most scientific theory, the only truly revolutionary theory. I say that here with complete satisfaction (applaud) and with complete confidence: I am a Marxist-Leninist, and I shall be a Marxist-Leninist to the end of my life. (prolonged applause).
>And what kind of a Marxist-Leninist am I? Am I a halfway one? We revolutionaries don't know how to be anything halfway. We only know how to be 100 percent something. And to that we shall dedicate our efforts, our energies, our entire selves. Moreover, it is a great satisfaction to have been illiterate at the age of eighteen and to feel revolutionary as I do now at thirty odd years – I think the "odd years" run to thirty-six (laughter and applause). I've learned a thing or two in eighteen years, and still have a lot to learn! And that is what we are telling the people, with complete candor, with complete loyalty, with all clarity, as I have always spoken to the people, always with complete frankness.
>Did I have prejudices? I believe it is good to talk about that. Did I have prejudices about the communists? Yes. Was I ever influenced by imperialist and reactionary propaganda against the communists? Yes. What did I think about the communists? Did I think they were thieves? No, never; I always regarded the communists -at the university and elsewhere – as honorable and honest people and all that… But, well, that is no special merit, because almost everyone recognizes these qualities in them. Did I have the idea they were sectarian? Yes. Why did I have such opinions about the communists? Simply, I am absolutely convinced that the ideas I had about the communists – not about Marxism, nor about the Communist Party – like the ideas many people have .were the product of the propaganda and prejudices instilled in us since childhood, practically from school age, in the university, in the movies anal everywhere else. I should say so. Do I believe they could make mistakes? Yes, I believe they can make mistakes. Marx, Engels and Lenin could make mistakes, and they themselves were the first to admit that they could be wrong, that they could err, because they did not think themselves infallible.…
>What is the significance of the moment when all revolutionary organizations unite? What it means, among other things, is hundreds, thousands of cadres, thousands of cadres! of tested people, of people who had gone through sacrifices, through hard trials, through difficult trials, who had a political education. And this reminds me of the times people came and said: "When are we going to carry out the July 26th program?" And I said: "What 26th of July program are we going to carry out unless it is a Marxist-Leninist program? Why should we carry out two Marxist-Leninist programs?" This is the reality. Anything else would mean building castles in the skies. …
>Socialism behaves very generously toward its enemies – too generously. The social system which captured over a thousand mercenary traitors – paid by and serving the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon, and who came here escorted by foreign ships – the system that captured 500 counter-revolutionaries – among whom were many murderers who had already committed blatant crimes against the peasants – without even applying the maximum penalty on them, the social system that sees with anguish its calm and generous attitude repaid by the cowardly and vile murder of a 16-year-old youth – that is socialism.
>In other words, with all its power, socialism does not abuse it. It is calm. It is conscientious. It struggles to overcome all its defects. It struggles to overcome-extremism, sectarianism, abuses, injustices, simply because it is socialism, simply because it is what Marx and Engels conceived of, what Lenin and all the revolutionaries fought for – a better life for man, a happier life for the people, a freer life for the people, that replaces the regime of class oppression, the regime of an exploiting class over the workers, with a workers' democracy. In Marxist terms, this is known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat". (applause).
>But though it is called "dictatorship of the proletariat," it does not mean torture, murder, crime. Certainly not! Those are characteristics of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie – which, indeed, means torture, murder, dipping into the public till, injustice and arbitrariness. Proletarian government means simply that the working class seizes power to develop a historic cycle, and that it exercises this power over other classes, against which it has to struggle during the entire stage of the building of socialism. What better proof of the hatred of a class displaced from power than the murder of a boy in Trinidad. Could hatred and sadism be expressed any clearer? That is, simply, a manifestation of the class struggle, the struggle of the classes thrown out of power to regain their class control. That's why they develop such hatred, a hatred which, as Marti put it, is born "drooling from the entrails of the man." That description fits this case better than any other because only a mouth-frothing hatred born from the entrails of the exploiting classes could engender a crime like the crime they perpetrated against that boy.
>This rule by the working class, the dictatorship of the working class, does not mean torture, or social crimes, or arbitrariness because socialism is opposed to all that. None of those things has anything to do with socialism. Socialism struggles against all injustice and rectifies all injustice. It struggles against all arbitrariness and rectifies all arbitrariness. It struggles against crime and-will never tolerate crime, never tolerate torture, never tolerate cowardice, never tolerate any baseness. Of course, it's no bed of roses. The enemies of the working class, the enemies of the peasantry, the enemies of the students, the enemies of socialism, the enemies of national independence won't find the struggle a bed of roses either. These enemies will get a reply from the strong hand of the Revolution, the strong hand of the proletariat, the strong hand of the people.
>This means they are not going to waltz through here; for the things that were the cause of the law which the Revolution approved – and which it had to approve because of their behavior, for despite all the care the Revolution takes and all the effort it makes not to commit excesses, to use its power with discretion, to be generous and to keep on stressing generosity, it has been rewarded with crimes and acts as cowardly and barbarous as this (murder of a teacher) – have taught the people to be harsh toward the enemy. We are not inhumane, and none of us can ever take pleasure in anything that involves bloodshed, that involves shooting. No, none of us likes that. None of us are cruel, but we are aware, however, we are very much aware that the enemies of the Revolution should be treated with the harshness they deserve. That in this struggle they are not going to find a proletariat that murders, tortures; but they are going to find a proletariat that is firm, hard, and will give them the punishment they deserve. This law was not made just to be proclaimed but to be carried out.
>What, before anything else, will the United Party of the Socialist Revolution be? It will be a school for revolutionaries. It will be a party where one learns to be revolutionary. That is why such special emphasis has been put on the school. The party, as such, is still not officially established. It has not had its first congress yet; but it will have one. When? There's no rush, but it'll have it. But the important thing is that extraordinary progress at the base has been made in integration and unity, and that in fact a revolutionary vanguard organization exists and that hundreds of schools are functioning, and that more than 10,000 citizens are taking courses of revolutionary instruction; they are training and developing their capacities.…
>And I tell you sincerely that one thing that makes each of us more and more revolutionary every day is to see a comrade who knows practically nothing of revolution, nothing of economics, nothing of Marxism. There were even anti-communists among-them, poor people, who had been instilled with anti-communist ideas, though they owned nothing: no capital, no wealth, no property of any kind. That's the limit. There's an explanation for the anti-communism of the owner of the sugar mill, or of a bank, but it is inconceivable that a man who has absolutely nothing should not be in accord with us when we tell him that we are going to socialize big business and the big banks.
>And to see comrades devote themselves to the study of economics but in such a way that, to speak the truth, if we revolutionary leaders don't study, we'll soon have people from the ranks knowing more about economics and political economy, Marxism-Leninism, and a whole lot of revolutionary things than we do. I tell you this seriously, whether you want to take it seriously or not, but we shall see. I believe, I believe that, meanwhile, we the leaders are obliged to study more than any one else. …
>Let us accustom ourselves, in accordance with the times and in accordance with our Revolution, to seeing in the people the great virtues, the great minds, the great merits, knowing that there are great reserves among them and that, therefore, they cannot fail! A man can fail, because a man is one. A people cannot fail, because there are thousands, because there are hundreds of thousands of minds, hundreds of thousands of potential leaders.
>Then, what must the Party of that revolutionary people do? That Party must be the great instrument of merit, the great instrument of revolutionary vocation, the great instrument of revolutionary intelligence; that Party must always be above individuals because the Party is going to embody, not the value of one mind, but the value of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of minds; not the value of one heroism, but the value of the heroism of all; not the value of one spirit of sacrifice, but the value of the spirit of sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of citizens, of the fighting spirit, of love for the Revolution.
>This is what the United Party of the Cuban Socialist Revolution must be! (6/6)
So with that all in mind, you still don't believe Castro was a Marxist? From the very speech you called "vibes based?"
>>2236732People like to seem like they know what they're talking about and they like shitposting, it's a bit of both.
Famously they tend to pick who people don't expect, there is rarely seemingly a shoe-in candidate.
>>2236808Both Francis and Hezbollah had solidarity for Palestine.
Not exactly hard to see why Hezbollah would somewhat admire him.
>>2236707>>2235973>>2235908>>2235349>>2235350>>2235351>>2235377>>2235451>>2235479>>2235495>>2235520>>2235809>>2235862>>2236445Liberalism. Religion is a tool in the hands of the capitalist class and a pope calling for more humane treatment of the poor under capitalism and thoughts and prayers for Palestine doesn't change that. The Saudis do that too, are they also a lesser evil? You retards can see how wrong lesser evilism is in bourgeoise elections so why not when it comes to pedophile opium peddlers?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm>The workers may secure a greater or lesser degree of political liberty to fight for their economic emancipation, but no amount of liberty will rid them of poverty, unemployment, and oppression until the power of capital is overthrown. Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch13.htm>Let no one believe, however, that the "cultivated" Englishman openly brags with his egotism. On the contrary, he conceals it under the vilest hypocrisy. What? The wealthy English fail to remember the poor? They who have founded philanthropic institutions, such as no other country can boast of! Philanthropic institutions forsooth! As though you rendered the proletarians a service in first sucking out their very life-blood and then practising your self-complacent, Pharisaic philanthropy upon them, placing yourselves before the world as mighty benefactors of humanity when you give back to the plundered victims the hundredth part of what belongs to them! Charity which degrades him who gives more than him who takes; charity which treads the downtrodden still deeper in the dust, which demands that the degraded, the pariah cast out by society, shall first surrender the last that remains to him, his very claim to manhood, shall first beg for mercy before your mercy deigns to press, in the shape of an alms, the brand of degradation upon his brow. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-04/the-sharing-of-goods-and-the-social-function-of-private-property.html>He clearly explained that ‘the Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property, in order that goods may serve the general purpose that God gave them’ (Address to Indigenous and Rural People, Cuilapán, Mexico [29 January 1979], 6). Consequently, he maintained, ‘it is not in accord with God’s plan that this gift be used in such a way that its benefits favour only a few’ (Homily at Mass for Farmers, Recife, Brazil [7 July 1980].https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42745170>Francis said there was "no proof" for their claims that abuse by Father Fernando Karadima had been covered up by another man, Bishop Juan Barros. "There is not one single piece of proof against him (Bishop Barros). It is all slander. Is that clear?" the Pope said.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/pope-francis-accused-opposing-reforms-tackle-clerical-sexual-abuse>On Tuesday Anne Barrett Doyle, a co-founder of BishopAccountability, which tracks alleged clergy sexual abuse cases, cited 10 cases since 2019 that allegedly show the pope favoured accused bishops and clerics over their victims. The cases include that of Marko Rupnik, who was excommunicated in 2020 after accusations of sexual and psychological assault against nuns dating back three decades, but in 2023 was accepted into a diocese in his native Slovenia. “It would be one thing if we were coming here to talk about an overall good record with an occasional inconsistency, but we’re not, we’re talking about a continued pattern of the pope backing accused abusers,” Doyle told reporters in Rome. “It’s not that this pope doesn’t have his heart in reform or is maybe being blocked by other members of the curia. I believe he is opposed to reform – his measures have been designed to produce little impact.”
>The pope, quoting himself, recalled a conversation in which he said “there is an air of faggotry” in the Vaticanhttps://www.ewtnvatican.com/articles/pope-francis-reportedly-again-uses-derogatory-word-when-discussing-gay-seminarians-2869
>"Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings," the pope says. "Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation." "With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator," he continues.https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/pope-francis-compares-transgender-people-to-nuclear-weapons-in-new-book Pope says NATO may have caused Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Francis says transatlantic military alliance was ‘barking’ at Russia’s door.
https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-nato-cause-ukraine-invasion-russia/>>2237042>talking about how he saved the churchYeah, about that….
People did the math. There's zero reason to stay with a church if they're going to be just as "degenerate" as the rest of the surrounding world
>>2238339it does, and not just evangelism. paraguay is listed as "most catholic" on that list but their catholicism is much closer to the american crazy tradcath thing (which is really just evangelism with a different skin) than to the "idle catholicism" in the rest of south america
ten years ago I would have told you that in most of latam, catholicism is the prestige religion while evangelism is the popular or, more accurately, the consumer religion. nowadays the ruling class in most of these shitholes seems to have understood that evangelism is better for their interests so you are seeing it spread among the rich, specially the landowners
>>2238325No, but I think it will slow the current decline that accelerated under Francis. Frankly I'm just sick of looking at christianity attempting to be something it has never been, and then expect everyone to forgive them for embracing the current thing
>>2238339Evangelicalism is an american export, and has been making gains in Latin america. Reaffirms my previous stance
>>2236412Based.
Fuck gender ideology whatever the fuck that is. There are only three genders.
>Male>Female>KGB >>2235437Closer?
Like, you have to sit in the plane for less minutes?
This guy is being considered to be the next Pope btw. He's super pro Palestine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierbattista_PizzaballaPierbattista Pizzaballa OFM (born 21 April 1965) is an Italian Catholic prelate who has served as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem since 6 November 2020
He is considered a possible front-runner for the papacy at the 2025 papal conclave following the death of Pope Francis.[2]
He speaks Arabic too
>>2258805All after surviving an assassination attempt
He might actually be the Antichrist
>>2258797Peace be with you the people of the world. This is the peace of CHrist risen from the dead to the modest people, from god who lives us unconditionally. We still have the voice, the weak voice of pope francis in our ears who has blessed rome. The pope who blessed rome and the world on easter. Let me follow this blessing god loves you all and the evil will not gain power over us because we are in the hand of god. Thus without fear hand in hand with god and together, we are the students of christ would walked in front of us. Humanity needs us he is the bridge between us the god's love. Help us to build bridges that we are united as one people in peace. Thanks pope francis,
continued
Thanks pope francis
>>2258799Genuine question, how can liberal christfags counter that their sacred text calls for the exclusion of homosexuals of the church?
Greatings to Peru lets gooooooo
>>2258810I also wnat to thank all cardinals that selected me as the successor of Petrus that we can advance in a united church that we can put all our effort to be loyal to christ and spread the evangelium as missionaries.
I am son of St. Augustin, he said with you I am christ and so I am your bishop. And os we all can go on our way to the home that christ made for us.
The Roman church I am greeting especially. We have to be a missionary church that builds bridges through dialog that is always open to receive the people we all need our presence love and presence.
Let me giv ea greeting in spanish.
>>2258796unprecedented how? cause he's american? he has no special line on anything, he's a safe choice for all parties and he's young so it's gonna be a slow 20 years long papacy
>>2258795>>2258805read his wiki page at least, he's been involved in Peru since the 80s and it's his work there what got him to cardinal
>>2258819Today is the day of the holy madonna of pompeii which will always be with us that will help us all, we are praying together and let's seek the protection of saint mary. let's us pray together:
(prayer to mary mother of god)
Check his xitter
https://xcancel.com/drprevostHe's actually very against the Great Satan's administration.
Learned about the new pope at work, I do call center shit and was given the news helping a customer as loud AF fox news was blaring the whole time.
>>2258834Pedoriots in control we did r/donald the priest can harass alter boys again!
>>2258829If he is a socialdemocrat/Apraist I would lol to the skies.
>>2258838Chiclayo wasn't affected by the SP. For seeing a rightwing-chud-fujimorist priest you have to see Cipriani and his closeness to what the Fujimori clan represents.
And he was exiled by Pope Francis
You heard here before anywhere else
<To no one surprise, as a obisp he was accused of covering priests: Covert pedophile priests: shadows on Prevost, the cardinal who elects bishopsThe church protecting their people as always
https://www.altavoz.pe/locales/curas-pederastas-encubiertos-sombras-sobre-prevost-el-cardenal-que-elige-a-los-obispos/>But let's go in order: according to the sworn testimonies of three victims that have reached the hands of Brujula cotidiana, the reported events occurred between 2006 and 2010 and those responsible were two priests from the diocese of Chiclayo, about 600 kilometers north of the capital Lima: Father Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzales, known as Father "Lute", and Father Ricardo Yesquen. The victims who filed the complaint were three young people, girls between 10 and 14 years old at the time of the abuse: three sisters, who decided to report after discovering years later that they had all suffered similar abuse.Here is a long report of his beliefs, history and stances. It's by a religious site
.
https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-francis-prevost/>>2258874And aparently it was another ploy by the sodalicio to bring down the progressive wing
https://www.religiondigital.org/america/Pedro-Salinas-encubrimiento-Robert-Prevost-Peru-Sodalicio-Papables_0_2776522347.html<Pedro Salinas: "The 'allegations' of a cover-up against Robert Prevost are absolutely false.">"The accusations against Prevost arose from the ranks of the Sodalicio, with the purpose of discrediting, discrediting, and delegitimizing him in the public eye as a result of the events that were already beginning to happen in the Sodalicio case.">"Robert Prevost always bought into the fight and put himself in the shoes of the victims. He always put the victims first and was one of those who defended the survivors and victims against the attacks of the Sodalicio.">"The far-right sectors of the Catholic Church are active through their satellite media and acolytes to discredit potential papal candidates, who could follow the line of Pope Francis.">"Prevost would practically be celebrated as if he were a Peruvian Pope, because he has always put the victims of abuse at the center."
<Peruvian journalist Pedro Salinas, along with his partner, Paola Ugaz, was the one who uncovered and thoroughly investigated the Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana (Sodalicio of Christian Life), a movement that, before his death, Pope Francis suppressed following the process carried out by the Scicluna-Bertomeu Commission. He has spent years exposing this Catholic sect and has suffered all kinds of persecution, including judicial persecution. For all these reasons, he is a recognized authority in the world of clerical abuse and is fully aware of the actions of all the bishops in his country in the face of this shameful scourge.
>In an exclusive interview with Religion Digital, Salinas asserts that "the 'accusations' The allegations of a cover-up against Robert Prevost are "absolutely false" and originated from the ranks of the Sodalitium, "with the purpose of discrediting him, discrediting him, and delegitimizing him in the public eye."
>Furthermore, he acknowledges that Prevost "always bought the case and put himself in the shoes of the victims," and that these false accusations originate from the Sodalitium and "far-right sectors of the Church" to discredit him. >>2258874PS: Altavoz is a peruvian rightwing outlet.
Aparently with ties to the farrightist Sodalicio
>>2258904Laura loomer isn't even Christian lol
This is when Francis was in
>>2258907Burger overtones must be applied, like with their democratic party. On one side you have a good hearted missionary and on the other you have Francisco Franco calling for a crusade and latin mass (Read about the Sodalicio for example, dime a dozen)
Perse, the catholic church is not prohomosexual, their sacred book™ forbades it (insert read a book but not really)
Even, technically communism is still bad seen since the old XIX-XX encyclicals against labour and socialism hasn't been thrown away and teologian liberation has been defanged decades ago by Benedict. Or it doesn't work like that? I should deep myself in it since the politics of faith are important in every struggle as always.
>>2258907In 2012 this was a common view amongst even liberals in the west. During Obama 2008 run he talked against gay marriage
I would like to hear what this guy has to say now not depend on an opinion from 13 years on a topic that has evolved a lot in the last decade
>>2258922Why? The church is global. I'm not going to use American metrics since they suck in that regard. Also, since he spent so much time in South America I think it's fair to judge him by that metric, and in regard to that he kind of sucks. Pope Francis was at least sympathetic towards Liberation theology to some extent.
This guy stinks.
>>2258957That's why when Nietchze when unhinged his fans ended up as nazis
>>2258970The burger kkkolonial mindset
>>2258974Lol, amerikkkans complaining as usual
>>2258987>gender theory is similar to nuclear weaponsBecause it's a truth nuke?
(laughtrack)
>>2258989He didn't change his tune bro
Here this is from 2024
>>2258991 >>2258989Also, you're telling me the difference implying that you know that that guy has not changed his views. I can pull up to you over a dozen quotes that come from like 2015 to 2024 of Francis. Just absolutely insulting the hell out of gay people or trans people and you don't care about none of that
But then you care about a 2012 quote from this guy and you have nothing else except that quote. But you know that guy like hates gay people but then you're understanding of Francis. Come on man. Be honest with yourself about what you're doing here
>>2258994You literally know nothing about this guy at all. No one here knew this guy's name till today. This was not a person that was discussed as a highly sought out candidate whatsoever
So there's no way to say that you know Francis is history of having an open mind and then you know that this guy doesn't have an open mind. None of us know anything about this guy at all It's a complete guess. It's better to wait and see what they actually have to say instead of depending on one 2012 quote from a news article
>>2259024So either God did choose Leo as his representative and thus has a plan for him and his views or this guy just isn't a very good Catholic.
COULD IT BE that "Trad Caths" are more political than religious.
>>2258999>Prevost is first U.S. pope, spent many years in PeruPAPAL COUP CONFIRMED
PAPAL COUP CONFIRMED
JD VANCE KILLED FRANCIS
>>2259030Sedevacantism is basically protestantism with extra steps. You either believe the holy spirits chooses the Pope and that the Pope is infallible, or you simply don't believe in the catholic church.
>>2259028Trad caths in anglo countries are protestant larpers. Trad caths in catholic countries are just fascists.
>>2259037Then why does he care about the church or about the latin mass?
>>2259037Evangelicals split off from Prot groups like the Anglicans, not from Catholics. In fact, the early Evangelical movement was meant to stem the growth of Catholicism in the US.
Catholicism is the largest single Christian denomination in the US, and the US has had one of the largest Catholic populations on Earth pretty much since its inception.
Unique IPs: 205