Pope Francis and the "Hammer and Sickle Crucifix" Update.

It looks as if, no matter what he does - or does not do - Pope Francis will continue to receive grief from the political Right wing.

In a comment left on one of my most recent posts concerning Pope Francis and the hammer and sickle crucifix presented to him by Bolivia dictator, Evo Morales, it was claimed that the Pope actually appreciated the gift,but was leaving the crucifix in Bolivia and presenting it "to a statue of the Our Lady of Copacabana, patron saint of Bolivia".

"Francis accompanied this gesture with the following words: 'The President of the nation was kind enough to offer me two decorative honours on behalf of the Bolivian people. I thank the Bolivian people for their affection and the President for this courteous gesture. I would like to dedicate these two decorations to the patron saint of Bolivia, the Mother of this noble nation, so that she may always remember her people and from Bolivia, from the shrine where I would like them to be, that she may remember the Successor of Peter and the whole Church and look after them from Bolivia.'"

Now, in an editorial piece, Dennis Prager claims the pope himself announced that he was "keeping the hammer and sickle crucifix and taking it home".

We have different sources telling us contradictory stories as to the final home of the hammer and sickle crucifix. They can't agree on it's location, but they agree that Pope Francis really loves the ugly thing because, deep down, he's really a dyed in the wool Marxist.

Our Pope is not a Marxist.

Pope Francis speaks out against "the relentless pursuit of profit" and human lives being sacrificed on the "altar of money."

It doesn't take a communist to see that the world's wealth is not distributed fairly among the people of this planet. The solution to this problem is neither Capitalism nor Socialism. The Church does not endorse either economic system. The Church has no quarrel with the private ownership of property or ethically run businesses.

The economy should be for the benefit of the people, not using people for the benefit of the economy.