John Moonstroller


This conversation is closed.

Can the new Pope, Francis of Argentina, the first non-Latin pope in 1,300 years, be a person of substantial influence in the world?

The new Pope of the Catholic Church failed to attend a Gala Concert created in his honor stating: “...bishops should be "close to the people" and not have "the mentality of a prince ..”

Pope Francis stated that: “ speculation and corruption were keeping millions of people in hunger and the financial crisis could not be used as an alibi for failing to to help the poor...”

At a United Nations Food conference in Rome, the Pope stated: “..."It is a well-known fact that current levels of production are sufficient, yet millions of people are still suffering and dying of starvation. This is truly scandalous”

The Pope has revealed the idea that there is a dictatorship run economy on our planet and they are forcing ideals of “Consumerism” on the people of the earth in order to increase and focus the wealth of world into fewer and fewer hands.

Many people throughout the planet earth are suffering from starvation and lack of proper food in their daily diet. Resolving this one planetary problem would be sufficient to boost the moral and energy level of the earths population to a level sufficient to deal with the other problems that face us and prevent us from forming together and becoming a Class I or Type I civilization

It is imagined by some, growing political forces on this planet, that in order to accomplish this transfer from a Class zero to Class I civilization we need to do away with the wealthy class of people, replacing them with Experts in their fields of expertise or Technocrats as they are called. It is further imagined that we may have to do away with money altogether. We will need to transform ourselves on a planetary scale. Failure to do so will ultimately lead us to planetary destruction.

Is this new Pope, the inspiration and leadership the planet needs to get us moving in this direction? As we say goodbye to Nelson Mandela, we need to say hello to the new Pope Francis of Argentina.

  • Jun 27 2013: Uh, no.

    He's the Pope of Rome, and that's it. States are built by people with armies.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: People are inspired and become discontent, then convert those states to another kind of animal. Then, they have the army.

      Did you mean Armies of "people"?
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: At least, the new Pope of Catholics seems to want to make things more simple and close to the poor. He must have his opportunity, as any leader, to show us how fine is he able making doing his job...
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: Can you furnish a list of his personal ostentatious wealth so we can follow you? Many Vatican Art works are donated. People need art to inspire them to greater works.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Kate, I get the impression he is fully aware of your concerns: Note this statement:

          "In another move to clean up the troubled Vatican Bank, Pope Francis on Wednesday appointed a commission of inquiry that will report directly to him about the bank’s activities. Known for its secrecy, the bank has been under mounting pressure in recent years to meet European transparency and anti-money laundering norms."

          It goes without saying that these things will take time.

          John Moonstroller
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Thank you Kate. I support the initial statements I've heard from the Pope. Weather he is a puppet or not, we will soon find out. If he is sincere, we will discover the real depths and allegiances associated with the Vatican. Let's not be fooled. They are a powerful force that is not so easily put aside by any secular movements. They will fight.

          I'm beginning to believe that some think I am a religious person. I am not. I'm as secular as they come. I do like to dabble in social engineering. As I told Edward, to me, killing off religious organizations is akin to shooting the Officers on the battlefields of old. Who is going to control all those soldiers? The last time the religious officers fled was during the great Plague in the pre-renassaunce era.

          From my research, Pope Francis is not your typical, pasty faced, puppet Pope. He has been solidly in the field, feeling and seeing with his own eyes, the pain and suffering mankind can put upon their fellow humans. He is a type of warrior Pope. Of course, the last time we had one of those, in old times, yre all about killing off protestants and burning witches.
          All of my thoughts on this matter come from my own research into the men and women, who are currently growing old and passing away. If they are not replaced with adequate people, the secular world could gain a foothold and war could occur. Such is their power to make war, always in the background, always with the hidden money and agents who will cut out their own tongues if necessary. By comparison, our NSA and the intelligence agencies of other countries are naive, youngsters, still wet behind the ears. They've been doing this for centuries. I think they have a good grasp of human nature and the power to motivate and manipulate it.

          Let the buyer beware. I believe that the Vatican may have drafted a rattlesnake into their midst. It could, and I hope it does, work the other way towards secularism.
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: Why do you say he is non-Latin? Francis is strictly a church leader. 95 out of every 100 people currently living on Earth do not have any affiliation with, or devotion to, the religion he represents*. He has no experience in global politics. He has no experience as chief of a national, or global, socio/political/economic administration. That resume can get you the job of POTUS, but not "the new world leader".
    *2012 World Religions- Christian 33.35% (of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha’i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: So, Edward, I could assume from the resume you post that he has not been corrupted or tainted by the social-economic ruling party?

      Seems to make him the man for the job to me and.... there he sits in the seat of a ruling leader.

      I guess life throws us a curve ball from time to time. Your a religious man right? What would Moses's resume look like, or King David of Israel?

      All religion aside, he has worked in one of the most depressed, and culturally diverse areas of the world. He has been a central figure in the development of the political scene in Argentina. And, he is not tainted by the goings on in the Vatican.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: Whether the current Pope is corrupt or not I cannot say. My points about his lack of experience as more than a high-level religious leader hold no sway with you? If you are asking whether Francis compares to Moses and David I have to say no. Since the world became more populated and advanced Popes no longer rule the world, they rule over Catholics (one out of every 20 people). Why do you think that might suddenly change? Your zeal for Francis is commendable, but the idea of him becoming Leader of the World is far fetched. I am not saying we couldn't do worse, I'm saying it won't happen in today's socio/political climate. Thanks for an interesting idea John!
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: I draw a distinction between a world ruler and a world leader. A leader inspires people. People follow his/her lead.

          I have no zeal for Francis. I am a causal observer of events as they unfold, as you are.

          Perhaps it is far fetched that he would become "the" leader of the world. What about "a" or "one of" the leaders of the world?

          My point with Moses and David was that they were both unqualified for the jobs they did. Yet, Moses helped found a nation and David helped sustain it. No one can say their contributions did not have a profound effect on our way of life today.

          What is 7 billion divided by 1 out of 20?

          It's a large number, not one to be flick away like a bothersome fly.

          Thank you for your comments Edward. I think I understand you well.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: RE: "I draw a distinction. . . " You are asking if Francis can be a person of substantial influence in the world? That is a different question than asking if he can be what is called in your headline, "a new world leader". Absolutely the holder of the office of Pope is a person who can have considerable influence in our world, protecting the rights of the unborn for example, and the defense of marriage. I thought your were comparing the Pope to men who did things like parting the Red Sea and slaying a ferocious giant of a warrior named Goliath. I don't think Francis has demonstrated abilities of that caliber. One out of twenty is equal to 5%. 5% of 7-billion is 350-million. You are correct that anyone who wields power over that many people is not to be flicked away. Understanding your definition of "a leader of the world" I don't think you need to ask if the Pope could be one, he already is one by nature of his office.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Edward, your misunderstanding is no fault our your own. It is my fault as a writer.
          Thank you for your clarity.
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: I guess I'm old-fashioned, I would still like to be rich. I actually think rich people help others a great deal, contribute immense amounts to charity. The trouble is, getting rich is such a motivator for people, if you take away the opportunity to get rich, people just aren't going to work as hard, and the quality of life will suffer for everyone.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: I think China and Japan are demonstrating that people will work for a decent living without the prospect of getting rich. Most of the charitable funds collected and or donated by the wealthy are distributed to the managers of the accounts who get their cut before what is left goes to those in need. In the case of the United Way, almost 72 percent is consumed before being distributed to needy institutions, where a further depreciation takes place to pay for the support of the institution. The proof of course is lying for all to see, in that nothing is being accomplished with all this money. Look at Hattie, Look at Africa, look at the eastern European nations, look at Afghanistan, look at Palestine.

      Once you get off your deck, drinking coffee and total up the real information which is lying around everywhere and do a couple of spreadsheets, you get a different picture of how Charity itself is nothing but a big industry to make some people rich.

      No. If we ban together and make life more livable for more people, we will progress much faster towards becoming a Class I Civilization, where such things as money are so much nonsense. Of course, if your happy with a few being in control of everything and your lot is okay by you then I can see your point.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: John, I believe there are people at the top in China and Japan whose life is substantially more comfortable than most of their compatriots, and these people at the top help drive a higher quality of life for everyone, and if you took away their chance to have a much more comfortable life than most they would stop driving very hard and everybody's quality of life would diminish.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: The point is there are more people at the bottom who live a decent life: health care, education, living accommodations. Mental health counseling.

          I don't think that adding more resources to the poor will somehow, magically, turn them into lazy bums. I've spent a little time in the Welfare lines myself when I was young and here I am, a college graduate, on TED, posing questions and comments that get your attention. Certainly far from a lazy bum wouldn't you say?

          Quick question: what do you base these assumptions of your's on?
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: re: The point is there are more. The problem I'm talking about is that if you take away the chance to become rich, the people who work their asses off to become rich will stop doing that, and everyone will suffer. The thing is, John, when people work their asses off to become rich, it doesn't just end up benefiting them, it benefits everybody. Let's look at Bill Gates, who has a tremendous quality of life that he worked like a dog to get. When he was working like a dog, much of what motivated him was the higher quality of life he could have for himself. But the things he did also benefited millions and millions of other people, he improved and popularized computer systems that now benefit all of society in myriad ways. If he hadn't had the chance to get rich, he wouldn't have worked like a dog, he wouldn't have improved things, he wouldn't have benefited himself or other people. The two things are always locked together, people work like dogs to benefit themselves but in the process they also help a lot of other people.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Greg, If I were left a considerable amount of money, to the extent I was considered Rich, I could start a corporation, hire doctors, lawyers, engineers, pay them a decent salary and they would work their tails off to just do the job and live within the pay I offer them. That's business

          If I were a high school dropout, won the lottery and started my own Midwife clinic, even though I'm not a doctor or know anything about medicine. I could increase my wealth by hiring midwives and a good manager.

          Being rich does not, in and of itself, make you superior in any way to the average Joe the plumber.

          Crafts people are content to earn a decent wage, and work, completely emerged in their work. If a writer is making a decent salary, writing for a living, they can be content in that life.

          Becoming rich is, not the single motivating factor to establish an healthy, thriving society of progressive human beings.

          The protestant work Ethic, is not about getting rich it's about making enough to meet your needs with some left over to help your neighbors.

          Being rich does not automatically make you superior to other human beings and we can do well enough without rich people. The native American Indians of the North American continent did quit well before the white rich man came to American, stole the land and killed their women and children.

          Desmond Tutu was the first black South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, and primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

          He once stated: "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."

          What if Desmond Tutu were the Pope? How do you think that Catholicism would be different and how would the Vatican's influence in the world change?

          Millions, perhaps billions of people work hard and enjoy it, never becoming rich.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Bill gate worked his butt off long before he was rich. He didn't do it for the prospect of getting rich If I've read him correctly. He enjoyed it. If he were simply an expert in the field and was livin in a society where he could only make a max of say 200,000 a year, he would still be there working those 20 hours a day, at least until poor health due to lack of sleep killed him.

          I'm done with the Rich is the only path to propel human evolution idea. The only people who believe that are rich people and those who desire it above all other things. They are a minority in the grand scheme of things on this earth. Polls indicate that most people would rather have no rich people and an all-encompassing middle class society. I really hope you become rich and discover for yourself what it is like. Good luck.

          So, what did you think about Desmond Tut's remark?
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: John, I appreciate your answer and your respectful tone. Still disagree. You say above you could hire people and they would "work their tails off" for a decent salary. I don't think anyone "works their tails off" for a decent salary. The average worker works hard, but Bill Gates is renowned in the computer industry for working twenty-hour days! Four or five hours after the average worker has gone home and is watching televison or in bed, Bill Gates, and people like him, are still at their desks, working. They wouldn't do that only for love of their fellow man, that is part of the motivation, but the other part is all the material comforts and status that all that work buys. And as I say, the work of the really hard workers like Gates benefits everybody, without people like him everybody's life is diminished.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: He may have worked his butt off before he was rich, but I think he had that hope that he would become rich and that partially motivated him. What are your sources that say otherwise? But John, even if what you say is true, I'll acknowledge that there may be the rare individual who will work like a dog even if they won't make much money, they purely enjoy the work or love humanity, but I'm thinking the majority won't. However, at this moment I can't prove that to you, it just "feels" correct to me. If you have any sources on this issue please share.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Well, Greg, there is only one way to find out if it is true or not.... let's give it a try. There exists no ill refutable evidence to support the supposition that your are correct and I am wrong, other than the Native American Indians and many tribal people still scattered throughout the world who live contentedly just trading goods. True, they haven't landed on the moon... but why should they have to?

          Besides, Bill Gate had million of people helping him become that rich man he is today, Even he admits that and states he would not be where he is otherwise. Bill Gates, Et Al, built Microsoft before Bill was a a rich man. Not every rich man can build a Microsoft company.

          Richness can be a by product of motivated people but that is due to the nature of our economy and the ease of hiring people to work for a contented life opposed to a very wealthy one, but, because it is limited by resource availability, energy supply and consumer demand, it is limited in scopes to improve the overall lot for all mankind. Why should we reward leaders with money? Why not reward them with honor, notability and the thanks of a world full of human beings. Bill Gates did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Which is the greater reward?

          The point is: People are alluded the title of "Leader" because they can inspire others, motivate them to do great things. Bill was a leader before he was a rich man. :)

          What if he had defined a limit to the amount of money any corporate employee made, including himself and put the rest into charity, and growing the company? Do you think Microsoft would never have come into being? If money is the only motivate to greatness and money is dependent on the ability to convert resources to useful products, what happens when we run out of "a" vital resource or many of them? Is the world doomed due to to a lack of motivated people?

          So, I guess, according to you numerous comments that your answer to my question is a resounding "No"?
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: No

    I seem to recall something about him being critical of the government policies in Argentina. As they are the epitome of what not to do. But based off of your comments above he does not seem to understand basic economics unless he has a revelation it would probably be best if he sticks to Catholicism?
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: The innuendos and problems he had in Argentina revolved around his participation with the rebels that were overthrowing a despotic dictator. They were successful. He was only one man and can only do so much in his past position within the church. As I said, they were successful.
      Now, he is in a position to have the last word in almost everything the Catholic church does. He is much more powerful now. He appears to be wasting no time in dealing with the issue that many people throughout the world find appalling

      He is a world leader Pat.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: In religion not economics or politics.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: No Pat. You are incorrect in your assessment. The Vatican owns billions of dollars of property, Assets, investments, etc. If they only depended on the charitable donations of people, they would no larger than a small church.

          Last year their books logged: 250.18 million euros and expenses of 254.28 million euros for a net loss of 4.1 million euros.

          Pope Benedict XV (1914-22) during and after the First World War (1914-18) started the Church on the road to becoming a profitable business.

          It was the beginning of a road which was to bring the Catholic Church into the ranks of the top billionaire corporations of the twentieth century.

          The Catholic Church, therefore, once all her assets have been put together, is the most formidable stockbroker in the world. The 'Wall Street Journal' said that the Vatican's financial deals in the U.S. alone were so big that very often it sold or bought gold in lots of a million or more dollars at one time.

          As you can see, the new pope has a big job cut out to do. The big problem is because of all the lawsuits, the Vatican Bank has been trying to hide money (hence the loss in profit last year).

          So, yes Pat. The Vatican influences both the markets of the world and the religious ideology of the planet. For any secular world order to think that putting an end to Religion would not result in a devastating world war of the likes never before seen on this planet is to be totally Naive and unacknowledged about world affairs. The present wars we are fighting with the Islamic nations, is only the tip of the iceberg. We should ask ourselves, who is monetarily supporting these terrorists? It is not just the Middle Eastern countries because we have all their money tied up in such a way we can keep track of it. Not so with the Vatican bank.

          The Vatican is not all about religion..... that is it's weakness.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: I don't know about any of that.

        What I do know is the Pope is economically illiterate based off what you said.

        Being the biggest landowner does not make it good at business.

        Wouldn't be good business to clean house regarding unethical behavior?

        The Inquisition was not good for the people.

        There is a danger in deifying people.

        I will agree to disagree
  • Jun 27 2013: A N D
    He seems a good guy, but greed and evil is never inconsequential. I am sure that he will leave the World a much better place.
    The Poor are always with us.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: I know the poor have always been with us, but do they have to be? He is more than a nice guy. He is a man above men/women; a legend in his country, when it came to a position of leadership inspiring people.