Pope suggests Trump: not Christian

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
irishpatrick said:
Oh please–Trump does NOT have a flock, unless his supporters now think of themselves as followers. We are talking about an often quite crass and rude businessman versus the Vicar of Christ…
Click to expand...
Every public official has a flock, and Trump is running to become POTUS.
POTUS is responsible for supporting US Citizens as his priority, not citizens of other countries.

Only the Pope has a global flock.

Too many public officials ignore their flock and focus on things/people that are not their responsibility.
 
Darryl1958 said:
Popes have generally understood this in the past. However, both Trump and Pope Francis seem to share some of the same personality traits, namely a lack of a filter. They both enjoy talking and saying what they want to say when they want to say it. Definitely, indulging in such a freedom is a luxury that can be very enjoyable.

In some ways that is very refreshing too. It is very exasperating to listen to public figures and have to interpret what they are trying to say when so much of the meaning gets filtered out. In other ways, it cannot help but lower the level of discourse to what one might expect on reality TV.

Filters exist for a reason.
Click to expand...
As I said in another post earlier, imagine if a situation like this existed in 1960s politics, this was said about Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy was the candidate running against him.

This in fact, would or could have confirmed some feeling of the American voters to be fearful of a Catholic president . We know the arguments pro and con of that.
 
Path_Finder said:
Perhaps the Holy Pontiff should say a funeral mass for the Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens. And then, give his compassionate reflections on that.
Click to expand...
Are Americans who are killed much more likely to have been killed by an illegal alien than by another American? I haven’t seen any statistics about this.
 
Theo520 said:
Every public official has a flock, and Trump is running to become POTUS.
POTUS is responsible for supporting US Citizens as his priority, not citizens of other countries.

Only the Pope has a global flock.

Too many public officials ignore their flock and focus on things/people that are not their responsibility.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Public officials serve the citizens–they do not have a flock. How utterly ridiculous.

Things really are getting weird in here.
 
gracepoole said:
I hear what you’re saying but as I’m free to “ponder” and as you’ve raised the “specter” of scandalous popes, I’m free to draw whatever conclusions I like.
Click to expand...
Yes, one can draw those conclusions, the essay is about Papal infallibility though.
 
irishpatrick said:
Oh please–Trump does NOT have a flock, unless his supporters now think of themselves as followers. We are talking about an often quite crass and rude businessman versus the Vicar of Christ.

Man, this really is a weird episode of Twilight Zone. Up is down, and down is up. Right is wrong, and wrong is right. Trump is now a Pope over a flock, just as Pope Francis is a Pope over a flock, and Putin is Pope over a flock, and x is a Pope over a flock. Thousands of Popes across the world…
Click to expand...
I think that PF rmade the point clear enough bu using Flock to describe the (religious)followers of the pope, and flock to describe the (political)followers of Trump.

Brevity is a virtue on discussion forums, and what could be more brief to describe an essential difference between two things being compared than a capitalization of one of the terms?
 
irishpatrick said:
Nonsense. Public officials serve the citizens–they do not have a flock. How utterly ridiculous.

Things really are getting weird in here.
Click to expand...
A governor of the state watches over the citizens of that state, so does the President.

This is obvious.

I believe “weird” is another condescending term in usage again instead of an earnest interest in debate done in a respectful way.
 
gracepoole said:
I hear what you’re saying but as I’m free to “ponder” and as you’ve raised the “specter” of scandalous popes, I’m free to draw whatever conclusions I like.
Click to expand...
My essay has an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat to it. So make of that what one wants.

If one brings in this “scandalous” word, “anti-Semitism” in Hungary was discussed, yet, the Bishop is wary of what he called an invasion of Hungary. So, then, what kind of leaps of reason do we make of this?
 
Darryl1958 said:
Popes have generally understood this in the past. However, both Trump and Pope Francis seem to share some of the same personality traits, namely a lack of a filter. They both enjoy talking and saying what they want to say when they want to say it. Definitely, indulging in such a freedom is a luxury that can be very enjoyable.

In some ways that is very refreshing too. It is very exasperating to listen to public figures and have to interpret what they are trying to say when so much of the meaning gets filtered out. In other ways, it cannot help but lower the level of discourse to what one might expect on reality TV.

Filters exist for a reason.
Click to expand...
I agree - I feel that they both overstepped the line. It is fun to speak your mind (I do it all the time), but I am not sure I would do it in delicate public situations where so much was on the line - and I had been burned before…where I sought to represent a faith or a party. The good news is it wasn’t serious - the Pope did throw in the part about ‘bridges’ and ‘giving him the benefit of the doubt’ which everyone seems to be ignoring, though it was undeniably a cagey remark. And Trump is backing off too - and he has criticized Cruz as ‘nonChristian’ because he is a ‘liar’ - I mean we hear this every day from him. Trump is backing off the pink code stuff too - he is now at ‘I don’t know’ if Bush lied about WMDs…or at least that was the last version I heard; may be outdated now.
 
Maybe there is a better thread to put this comment of mine on, but I’m gonna do it hear anyway! I would like to draw attention to the Castro Bros. How old do you think they are? Fidel (I remember well, how he and his gang came to New York and brought their chickens with them in the hotel!) Well, that was a long time agol President Kennedy has been gone too long and Robert and J. Edgar Hoover, and Jimmy Hoffa! How much longer will the Castro boys be in power? But, more to the point, who in the heck knows WHO will be the boss afterward?

Maybe if Obama stays there, he will be. 😃
 
Sunbreak said:
I support Trump over the Pope on this issue. We need to do something to stop the flood of illegals coming over the border.
Click to expand...
Okay, but we should distinguish between illegal and undocumented. All one has to do is to give birth in this country (and there are many) and that child becomes legal. That’s not going to solve the problem. I wish Trump the best on the issue.
 
Path_Finder said:
I can speak Spanish, I’ve probably known hundreds of Hispanics who can speak English.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by speaking English. Of all the tree-cutters and grass-cutters I’ve had, I have yet to encounter one who knows what the word “nuisance” means. Many know enough to do business in but so what?
 
Path_Finder said:
I can speak Spanish, I’ve probably known hundreds of Hispanics who can speak English.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by speaking English. Of all the tree-cutters and grass-cutters I’ve had, I have yet to encounter one who knows what the word “nuisance” means. Many know enough to do business in but so what?
 
Path_Finder said:
This is old. This is the same ol’ same ol’, this is not Catholic teaching that we have to adhere to every uttering of the Pope. To stick up for someone being unfairly attacked which I believe the above is, is quite unfair. If I see someone getting beat up in the street, I will go help them.

I agree, it is weird, like what sounded like believing that everyone coming across the border were from Mexico or calling “sarcasm”, someone stating, perhaps poorer people from Asia or Africa could be flown in if we are to help the least of our brothers.

I find that quite cold. Perhaps they are the wrong color.

It’s perhaps the Twilight Zone that instead of earnest discussion, we are comparing the Pope to a Presidential Candidate.

Well, it has been shown that Marco Rubio, who I believe has a proper name for us to back up, has also been critical of the Pope.

Man, are we really going to compare Marco Rubio to the Pope now as a main argument.

That is absurd.
Click to expand...
And–so it continues–“Rod…Rod Serling, are you there?”
 
Path_Finder said:
A governor of the state watches over the citizens of that state, so does the President.

This is obvious.

I believe “weird” is another condescending term in usage again instead of an earnest interest in debate done in a respectful way.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is serious debate when a businessman is now said to have a flock in the same context of the Pope having a flock. Sorry, but that really is weird.
 
Darryl1958 said:
I think that PF rmade the point clear enough bu using Flock to describe the (religious)followers of the pope, and flock to describe the (political)followers of Trump.

Brevity is a virtue on discussion forums, and what could be more brief to describe an essential difference between two things being compared than a capitalization of one of the terms?
Click to expand...
Sure, I like brevity, but that brevity needs to make sense. To say Trump has a flock is utterly ridiculous. To say a politician has a flock is ridiculous.

This is getting more weird with every new post.

So, maybe instead of weird, I should say this thread seems to come from an alternate universe in which everything that is up here, is down there, and everything that is wrong here, is right there, and whereas here we have one Pope, in that universe there are infinite Popes and flocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top