I wanted to be more fair and less dismissive, even though from my perspective the problematic second part is the main focus. But I did spend more time on the th

I wanted to be more fair and less dismissive, even though from my perspective the problematic second part is the main focus. But I did spend more time on the third part, and has it made it even worse? First some generalities about how poor people should not care about money and some protection of rights (which was a previous achievement already). Then a call to action, with expedience at that to quoting "it is expedient to bring under special notice certain matters of moment. First of all, there is the duty of safeguarding private property by legal enactment and protection. Most of all it is essential, where the passion of greed is so strong, to keep the populace within the line of duty; for, if all may justly strive to better their condition, neither justice nor the common good allows any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people's possessions." And then even worse still "When work people have recourse to a strike and become voluntarily idle, it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures; for such paralysing of labor not only affects the masters and their work people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occasions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperiled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and employed. " So stop industrial action immediately and in the future try to remove the causes! Thank you for convincing me to read it further, it gave more gravitas to a hastily formed opinion on my end, but did not change it. Back to my message, I hope this is not what we get from Leo XIV on the new challenges, even though the fact that he chose his name on the basis of Leo XIII is not very promising. Actually, I respect more something as honest as: Ἀπόδοτε τὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος τῷ Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ.