And actually makes a few decent points. We'll gloss over the notion that when Jesus said 'nations' in the Great Commission, He had in mind the concept of nations as we understand the term today. Obviously not. But the greater point is this growing notion that our eternal destinies seem tied only to Matthew 25 and nothing else. Not only that, but increasingly its seems as though they are tied to the idea that Matthew 25 can only be interpreted a single way, primarily through the prism of Western Liberal Socialism and the political policies of the Secular Left.
The article points out that the countries these immigrants are fleeing are Catholic and almost entirely of the same socialist model that Pope Francis seems to prefer. I mean, could it be that as nice as the Socialist utopia looks on paper, it doesn't really work? I know, I know. There are some European countries that have embraced varying levels of a Socialist model, and they are doing quite nicely. Assuming you don't think secularized nations of unlimited sexual immorality and culture of death that is aborting their nations out of existence to be a bad thing. But perhaps those traits aren't linked. Nonetheless, you must admit that the track record of socialism, especially in Central and South America, leaves a lot to be desired.
But another problem touched on, somewhat loosely in the article, is this notion that Christianity depends on building bridges, not walls. As I said earlier, Pope Francis seemed to give the go ahead for fighting ISIS by military means. He certainly didn't seem to be building bridges to ISIS. Is that OK? If so, then when exactly does not building a bridge jeopardize your eternal soul (assuming that not being a Christian today has any bearing on your eternal soul)? And when is it OK? If my soul and my relationship to God depend on it, I want some blueprints or at least few details.
The problems with Pope Francis' answer to the question are legion, for they are many. The more you begin to unpack the answer, even if trying to give the benefit of several doubts to Pope Francis, you begin running into problems. And as Pope, the purpose is to lead, not confuse. As for the old argument that Jesus spoke in parables, so the Pope can as well? Yeah. Jesus was Jesus. He had a little more insight into things. Assuming we don't want to live up to the stereotype that Catholics think Popes are God, it would do us well not to excuse the Pope's occasional blunders by appealing to the notion that the Pope might be equal to God, so that gets him off the hook.