No, that is not the intention. The intention is to show that merely quoting a Pope is not an ultimately authoritative statement. That the Pope is not always perfect in all he says, perhaps those who continue to present this, need to acknowledge that as well. Per Papal Infallibility.
I never said the holy Father should have answered in any way different from the way he did. I thought he answered the reporter’s question well. But it has to be admitted the reporter spun the question, presenting to the Pope a description of Trump that didn’t fit what Trump actually has said.
The illegal immigrants from the south are 99% economic refugees, not conflict refugees.
We’re nearing 900 posts now and to my knowledge, no one here has claimed that the Pope’s comments were made ex cathedra. They have, however, noted that the Pope’s authority and instruction shouldn’t be easily ignored.
The clip of her exchange yesterday with Donald Trump is on her website homepage under “freebies” if your curious about her entire statement (LauraIngraham.com)
I agree and also, not to be selective in what one hears from Him.
Are you referring to the statement by Trump that he wants to bring some of the illegal immigrants back to the U.S. (those who are worthy) after he deports them? If so, how do you think he might do that, and how is he going to deport so many people in the first place?
The pertinent quotes for those who haven’t followed the link:
I’d be curious, too. For me, this just confirms what I already knew was the pope’s intent. Even Trump backed up a bit when he saw the actual context. And for Trump to do that is saying something.
I can’t agree with what Limbaugh said in that article, though I think he is often “on the money” in other contexts.
Honestly, I can’t imagine Trump actually building a wall if he (somehow) gets elected President. Building a several hundred mile wall and deporting millions of people is easy to say, but would be a logistical nightmare to actually implement. I can’t imagine it ever happening.
That’s right. If a man by his actions show that he is doing everything that is un-Christian, but then proclaims to be a Christian, you are right that I’d be right to question his faith. Faith is shown by works, not by some profession that one claims. When others purport loudly “Who am I to judge?”, it is referring to whether or not that person will enter into the glory of Heaven or be sent to the pits of Hell. We can and should judge others for their actions all the time. When someone commits a crime, we must judge if they are guilty. When someone says, I am a Christian, but then blasphemes the Holy Spirit, denies Christ as Savior and/or says repentance is for dorks… you darn well better believe I make a judgment. I hope each and every one of you make a judgment about who you vote for, because without judgment, we in fact have reduced ourselves to bacteria. Higher-ordered thinkers use judgment constantly to make decisions.
I feel more than a little sick for having listened to a portion of that.
Amen. A country has a right to enact sensible and reasonable laws that promote the welfare of their citizens and just laws allow for immigration into the country through legal means. When a country denies citizens and foreigners means to immigrate and emigrate, then those laws become unjust. We have a legal means for people to come to our country and for us to implement those would be certainly within the bounds of Catholic teaching. When people who willfully ignore and break those laws, we should be legally bound to punish them, but also treat them compassionately.
I’m pretty sure Laura has argued that theory several times before on her show before this Trump/Pope controversy as well.
We already have a border which was strengthened significanlty under Bush. It’s much more difficult to sneak across than in early 2000’s.
As you know, I did not say that.
You point was that it was not luck. My point was that it was to a great extent luck. That certainly refutes your point.
Because it refutes your implication that we need not share our good fortune with those who are not so fortunate. If our prosperity is seen as a grace from God to be used as He wills, then we do have a greater obligation to share that good fortune than if we saw our prosperity as exclusively a product of our own hard work.
Luck as it applies to this discussion does not follow any laws at all. We are not talking about the probability of dealing a straight flush. We are talking about undeserved graces given to us by God. I would call that luck if I had to talk to an atheist, but when I talk to a believer, I don’t call it luck. I call it the grace of God. And there are no laws of science you can use to qualify how that grace is distributed. There used to be a popular Protestant idea that grace from God is a sign of God’s approval of you. So if your fields did not produce well, that must mean you have sinned and God is withholding his graces because of that sin. That idea is not a Catholic idea, and I don’t subscribe to it.
There are many factors going into what makes Oregon and Pakistan different, and not all of them are due to poor decisions made by the people living in Pakistan. Most of them are due to the graces of God, which include much more than the climate and the composition of the soil.
Again you are trying to reduce the evaluation of God’s graces to a few easily observable characteristics. It is not at all clear that Mexico could overnight become as prosperous as the US if only they would adopt our system of government.
This isn’t even mathematically accurate, because the probabilities of the outcomes for individuals is highly correlated with which nation they live in. It is wrong to treat all individual outcomes as independent random variables, but that is what you would need to do to apply the law of large numbers are you are attempting to do.
Saying that Mexicans did not receive as much of these particular graces from God does not imply that God does not love them just as much. God’s reasons for not making everyone equal are inscrutable. People born blind are not any less loved by God, or any less his “favorites”. We must disconnect the notion of God’s graces from the notion of God’s approval of or love for those people. One possible reason for people born with less could be to provide a test for those of us with more to see what good stewards we are of the gifts God does give us. I’m not saying it is. Just that it is possible.
That’s for others to work out. But, for example, the government could declare a “grace period” of a reasonable time, let’s say a year, during which illegal aliens could go back to their home countries and get a visa from a U.S. Consulate like legal aliens do. Most of them go back home from time to time anyway, for other reasons. Let’s say there is a “Level One” (fairly superficial) vetting at that time. If the alien passes it, he gets a visa and, if he was working before, a work permit to continue doing the same thing. During the ensuing year (year two) they would undergo a more in-depth “Level Two” vetting. Anyone with questionable results could undergo a “Level Three”, very intensive investigation which could result in revocation of the visa and deportation.
It was fear-mongering then and it is fear-mongering now.I’m pretty sure Laura has argued that theory several times before on her show before this Trump/Pope controversy as well.
Path_Finder, you’re better than this. I’ve read many good posts from you in the past, so I know you’re better than this. The accusations leveled at our Pope in that article are over the top. Neither Rush Limbaugh, nor anyone else, should be out there telling us, and the rest of the world, about the Pope by creating ideas out of thin air.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, just so long as the plan does not involve more bureaucratic government agencies, which we liberals despise, as you know.