Pope suggests Trump: not Christian

[Ridgerunner]

“Peronism” is a socialist political system. It is more closely resembles national socialism than Marxist socialism (communism), but it is socialist in nature.

Probably somewhere there is a fairly enlightened history of Argentina written in English. Probably a fair number of them. What is difficult for me to understand is how Argentina went from being a very prosperous country…on European scale, and then went into the hopper and has stayed there for decade after decade.

One understands about Peron, and one understands about the post-Peron chaos which seems never to quite end. But Peronism had its roots in some kind of widespread discontent. So Argentina was already on the skids somehow when Peron took power.

Growing up in such a place might give a person an odd tilt to his thinking. Whether it has to Pope Francis or not, I don’t know.

One thing we do know, or can believe, is that his parents emigrated to Argentina from Italy, thinking they would have more opportunity in the former than in the latter. Why Argentina, one wonders? What was the draw? Did they come to regret it?

 

[queenofheartscv]

How do you know he was talking specifically about Trump?

I just find his statement juxtaposing the wall and the bridge a little judgmental against those who want a wall built. It presupposes that the wall is a bad thing with bad intentions.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Probably somewhere there is a fairly enlightened history of Argentina written in English. Probably a fair number of them. What is difficult for me to understand is how Argentina went from being a very prosperous country…on European scale, and then went into the hopper and has stayed there for decade after decade.

One understands about Peron, and one understands about the post-Peron chaos which seems never to quite end. But Peronism had its roots in some kind of widespread discontent. So Argentina was already on the skids somehow when Peron took power.

Growing up in such a place might give a person an odd tilt to his thinking. Whether it has to Pope Francis or not, I don’t know.

One thing we do know, or can believe, is that his parents emigrated to Argentina from Italy, thinking they would have more opportunity in the former than in the latter. Why Argentina, one wonders? What was the draw? Did they come to regret it?

It seems the draw was to avoid fascism.

lastampa.it/2013/03/17/esteri/vatican-insider/en/translate-to-english-jorge-e-contro-i-regimi-colpa-del-fascismo-se-nostro-padre-emigro-dsLa2d3qBmg6w2j0djj5qK/pagina.html

 

[stinkcat_14]

I just find his statement juxtaposing the wall and the bridge a little judgmental against those who want a wall built. It presupposes that the wall is a bad thing with bad intentions.

There is nothing admirable about someone who only builds walls.

 

[Darryl1958]

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.

We have a horrible, horrible deal with the USA and Cuba that strengthened a dictatorship and hurts the poor. This needs to be remembered as well.

I think that the first person who would agree with you would be the pope himself. It was not all that long ago and therefore easy to recall how the pope entered his office with guns ablazing and his fellow churchmen directly in his lines of sight. The pope is not interested in Catholic ecclesiastics using their positons in the church as position of privilege or hiding behind their robes to assume an air of morality that they have no more ownership to than anyone else. The pope is only human of course, and he may not like to be subject to the same criticisms that he subjected his fellow churchmen to. Nobody would. That does not mean he did not open the door to being exposed to exactly that.

And that is a breath of fresh air. That is opening the church to the 21st century, the spirit of Vatican II, and the empowerment of the laity.

‘We, the people’ have finally arrived in sacred Church history.

 

[Peebo]

The Pope does not comment on the Catholics ,who vote for people ,that say they believe in killing babies with abortions. These politicians are not told that they cannot be a Christian and support the killing of innocent babies. Would the Pope be as quick to stand up for those children that are aborted ,as he is to stand up for ,the people that break the laws of our country. Groups are allowed , within the church , to be for abortion, and many other causes that are not in line with Catholic ,biblically teachings ,yet no public rebuke from the Pope ,that I have heard. . Why was the Pope so quick to condemn the idear ,of a fence to help protect our country . He speaks Mercy to the homosexual ,those remarried out of the church etc. . He speaks ,No ,mercy for Americans who want a fence on the U S borders. Not to mention the Vatican is fence in. He want His state well protected. That is all we Americans want…

True.

There are many people apprehensive.

Well…apart from you…how many people agree with that anti catholic rhetoric…insinuating this Pope is slow to speak against abortion. to practically accuse the Pope of being uncaring about abortion…something which is against Catholic doctrine…that is called heresy…I’m surprised the moderators have allowed such garbage here

 

[queenofheartscv]

There is nothing admirable about someone who only builds walls.

You are doing the same thing here. When you say something like that, my natural response is, who are you talking about that only wants to build walls? There has to be someone you have in mind for you to talk like that. Who in their right mind only builds walls? That statement presumes that someone actually ONLY wants to build walls, which is impossible for anyone to know. How do you know somebody’s heart that well?

If it’s only a theoretical statement and it doesn’t refer to anyone, then I find it highly unnecessary.

It’s like saying, if you only build walls and don’t love anybody, then you are not a very good person. I find this statement odd.

 

[irishpatrick]

But that’s a straw man argument. To say that and actually apply that to a specific person is to imply that’s what the person does: only thinking about building walls and not bridges. This is an assumption that goes too far. How can you know if someone doesn’t want to build bridges? How do you know that?

A person can offer a “what if” situation, as the Pope did. It is up to us to decide if that “what if” applies to us or not. The problem lies in that people are not often honest with themselves.

 

[irishpatrick]

I just find his statement juxtaposing the wall and the bridge a little judgmental against those who want a wall built. It presupposes that the wall is a bad thing with bad intentions.

Building a wall is very bad thing, yet sometimes they are needed. Take Israel for example. They would much rather not have walls, but they are needed. I would hope that Americans would not actually want to build walls, but in this case, many think it is needed (I don’t share that feeling).

The Pope’s statement can only convict a person who is either guilty of what he proposes, or their conscience is speaking to them. It is not judgmental to say that if one thinks ONLY of building walls, and not of building bridges, that is not Christian–that’s just an obvious truth.

 

[gracepoole]

Every word the Pope speaks is not infallible.

We’ve covered this ad nauseum. No one here claimed the opposite. Some have simply (wisely) noted that instruction from the Holy Father shouldn’t be easily dismissed.

 

[queenofheartscv]

A person can offer a “what if” situation, as the Pope did. It is up to us to decide if that “what if” applies to us or not. The problem lies in that people are not often honest with themselves.

You can look at it that way, the Pope offering a moral caveat to immigration hardliners, which is fine. Theologically this could go all the way to the balance of justice and mercy. Both are in the nature of God. Both have to be maintained in order to have truth and goodness.

 

[peter26]

Any wall of course would have bridges, i.e. places whereby people can legally cross the border.

 

[zz912]

How do you know he was talking specifically about Trump?

The reporter who posed the question to the Pope specifically named Mr. Trump. To claim the Pope was not referring to him is disingenuous.

 

[irishpatrick]

You are doing the same thing here. When you say something like that, my natural response is, who are you talking about that only wants to build walls? There has to be someone you have in mind for you to talk like that. Who in their right mind only builds walls? That statement presumes that someone actually ONLY wants to build walls, which is impossible for anyone to know. How do you know somebody’s heart that well?

If it’s only a theoretical statement and it doesn’t refer to anyone, then I find it highly unnecessary.

It’s like saying, if you only build walls and don’t love anybody, then you are not a very good person. I find this statement odd.

It is a perfectly fine statement. If is akin to saying, “if a woman gets an abortion, she commits a mortal sin.” It is a statement that brings a bad action to light, but does not condemn any person–Jesus used that sort of thing often.

 

[irishpatrick]

The reporter who posed the question to the Pope specifically named Mr. Trump. To claim the Pope was not referring to him is disingenuous.

No, the main statement was not aimed at Trump–it was a broad statement regarding building walls. Anyone who follows the Pope knows he does this all the time. He sees in a question an opportunity to teach to a much wider audience. The Vatican even came out and said the statement was not a personal comment against Trump–as any person would be able to discern if they read all the comments from the Pope. The Pope even said he was giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, so why would he aim it at Trump and then take it back almost immediately?

 

[irishpatrick]

You can look at it that way, the Pope offering a moral caveat to immigration hardliners, which is fine. Theologically this could go all the way to the balance of justice and mercy. Both are in the nature of God. Both have to be maintained in order to have truth and goodness.

I think one has to consider the source and this came from the Pope. So, I think we definitely should take it that way unless the Pope says otherwise.

The Pope does not hide he does not like walls. But that doesn’t mean he was attacking Trump, rather he was sending a message to anyone who ignores the suffering of the people they are going to wall out.

The Pope, as usual, was trying to teach, not condemn. Sadly, too many refused to read all his comments and place them in proper context. Trump himself softened after he knew the full statements and comments and he hasn’t really talked about it much since.

 

[Darryl1958]

I’m sure this is a waste of electrons, but Limbaugh isn’t anti-Catholic. He’s certainly of a mixed mind about Pope Francis, but then, so are a lot of Catholics.

Having followed the issue somewhat, I would have to say that Trump is extremely cunning and sly.
He is the one that pulled the pope down into the issue, and on his own terms. He is the one who opened up the initial volley by accusing the pope of entering into the border issuing his plans to visit a Mexican border town. He is the one who prodded the pope into impromptu speeching which the pope opened himself up to being exposed as the kind of man who would accuse another Christian of not being a Christian for disagreeing with him.

Trump is a reality TV star. He lured the pope into his own version of the Big Brother house, and drew the pope into the social drama of intrigue and back stabbing that American viewing public has relished in for decades now, whether he wanted to or not.

Trump’s venue is the down and dirty of reality TV, of the Kardashian sleaze. Modern popes have normally measured their words and ideas to a higher realm, the sphere of heavenly things and molding a spiritual response to the world.

Now the pope is another contestant in the reality show of Trump’s own chosing, of ‘he said, she said, she said’, where in the end it doesn’t even matter what was ever said or intended, but only what most effective manipulators and masseuses of the truth can get others to believe was was said and what was meant.

In the end there is no bad publicity here for Trump. All’s that matters is the drama, and the fact that the Vicar of Christ has been dragged down into Trump’s latest reality TV media venture, and is playing the game.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Having followed the issue somewhat, I would have to say that Trump is extremely cunning and sly.
He is the one that pulled the pope down into the issue, and on his own terms. He is the one who opened up the initial volley by accusing the pope of entering into the border issuing his plans to visit a Mexican border town. He is the one who prodded the pope into impromptu speeching which the pope opened himself up to being exposed as the kind of man who would accuse another Christian of not being a Christian for disagreeing with him.

Trump is a reality TV star. He lured the pope into his own version of the Big Brother house, and drew the pope into the social drama of intrigue and back stabbing that American viewing public has relished in for decades now.

Trump’s venue is the down and dirty of reality TV, of the Kardashian sleaze. Modern popes have normally measured their words and ideas to a higher realm, the sphere of heavenly things and molding a spiritual response to the world.

Now the pope is another contestant in the reality show of Trump’s own chosing, of ‘he said, she said, she said’, where in the end it doesn’t even matter what was ever said or intended, but only what most effective manipulators and masseuses of the truth can get others to believe was was said and what was meant.

In the end there is no bad publicity here for Trump. All’s that matters is the drama, and the fact that the Vicar of Christ has been dragged down into Trump’s latest reality TV media venture, and is playing the game.

That’s going a little too far. Trump didn’t send someone to pose the question to the Pope. He’s cunning but doesn’t have that much control over things.

 

[queenofheartscv]

I think one has to consider the source and this came from the Pope. So, I think we definitely should take it that way unless the Pope says otherwise.

The Pope does not hide he does not like walls. But that doesn’t mean he was attacking Trump, rather he was sending a message to anyone who ignores the suffering of the people they are going to wall out.

The Pope, as usual, was trying to teach, not condemn. Sadly, too many refused to read all his comments and place them in proper context. Trump himself softened after he knew the full statements and comments and he hasn’t really talked about it much since.

I can agree with you.

 

[irishpatrick]

My advice to everyone here is to make sure you have the full story before you start blasting away at the Pope. And, no matter who the candidate, politician, or person that might be involved, if the subject covers a moral topic, it is wise to consider the Pope’s words very deeply. Despite the seeming frequent lack of respect for the Pope, he is the Vicar of Christ. There really is no other voice on earth that has a stronger authority regarding topics of faith and morals.

If Saint Peter had spoken the Pope’s words, they would not have held any more authority.