Pope's speech to US Congress [full text] [CC]

[TCEL]

I know this point has already been made, but I think he hopes that appealing to some of these “left” issues will leave the door open for dialogue and encounter. In a roundabout way, I think he is actually appealing to secularists to dialogue with us and not write us off. (I also think he’s genuine and believes what he’s saying.) But, we’ve been burned so often by extending our olive branches that we’re duly wary. The onus is on us to act like Christians, and to embrace our cross. More than ever we’re going to be signs of contradiction.

Sorry for rambling, but I honestly think I recognize this because of personal life experience. People vary, and it’s very difficult to tailor one approach for everyone. I’ve implemented his approach with people in my life. You meet people where they’re at. There are some people I’ve spoken with who will probably be softened and intrigued by this Pope, and others who will feel confirmed in their mistrust of things Catholic. We can’t expect the man to do everything.

 

[Romans615]

I think he meant to show the love of Christ and to exhort Congress to serve humanity’s needs. He didn’t pull punches. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. He was very clear and very gentle in his presentation, and due to this, he disarmed many would would have gone ballistic if he openly confronted them in anger. I wish more American Christians understood this, since we are called to peace. Pope Francis did not come off as a finger pointing “Off to Hell with you!” prophet.

In general, when someone speaks the truth with kindness, there is a much better chance that the speaker’s message will be pondered.

**Proverbs 15:1

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.**

Matthew 7:1-3

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Suudy]

I think he meant to show the love of Christ and to exhort Congress to serve humanity’s needs. He didn’t pull punches. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. He was very clear and very gentle in his presentation, and due to this, he disarmed many would would have gone ballistic if he openly confronted them in anger. I wish more American Christians understood this, since we are called to peace. Pope Francis did not come off as a finger pointing “Off to Hell with you!” prophet.

I haven’t seen a single suggestion that Papa Francis do any finger pointing. Rather, there have been exhortations to use the same explicit language for all moral issues. Being “very clear and very gentle” when discussing climate change and immigration can also extend to abortion and SSM.

 

[HCTC]

I had to read the whole text of the Pope’s speech to get some understanding of a lot of it. In reading the text I was struck by how elegantly constructed this speech is in its totality,

One of my favorite parts as I listened to the Holy Father deliver it directly was this:

'Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development."

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I haven’t seen a single suggestion that Papa Francis do any finger pointing. Rather, there have been exhortations to use the same explicit language for all moral issues. Being “very clear and very gentle” when discussing climate change and immigration can also extend to abortion and SSM.

Pope Francis has been very clear that his intention is to highlight other issues, but it is no surprise to me that many here have ruffled feathers because he chose to do exactly that.

 

[Suudy]

Pope Francis has been very clear that his intention is to highlight other issues, but it is no surprise to me that many here have ruffled feathers because he chose to do exactly that.

There is highlighting. And there is shrouding. He has highlighted these other issues, such as climate change and immigration, with clear, explicit language. And he’s shrouded issues such as abortion and SSM with vague commentary. It is possible to highlight issues without shrouding other issues.

 

[Muzhik]

Listening to the BBC World Hour on NPR. They just had an interview with some congresscritter from Michigan who talked about how emotional this was for her as a Catholic. She stated that she had gone from a Catholic kindergarten to a Catholic graduate school, and the stuff the Pope was saying was stuff the sisters taught her. When the interviewer started pushing her on things like the Pope’s stand on SSM and how she supported it in Michigan, though, she fell back on the argument, “Well, I didn’t hear him condemn it. And I don’t think Jesus, walking among the people, would condemn people for loving each other.”

I almost threw the radio through the window. No, Jesus would not condemn people loving each other. But YES, he would condemn the actions the people would take!

She also talked about how there was an absolute separation between Church and State in America. Not true, but that belief gives people the permission they need to violate Church teachings in voting, because if they vote with what the Church teaches, then we’re letting the Vatican set American laws and policy.

In short, I heard a lot of nice feelings but nothing that struck me as lawmakers actually listening to what he has said. A lot of Protestants I know have asked why His Holiness doesn’t preach fire and brimstone, esp. to the Congress. Hearing the lawmakers responses made me realize that they have become persistent in their sin, and are willfully ignoring the Laws of God.

Please, God, forgive us our sins and lead us back to You.

 

[NormW]

Abortion, same sex marriage, and euthanasia are merely political issues?

I think sadly they are often reduced to being merely political issues. How you vote determines where you stand. Are there items the Pope spoke of that are only political issues? I would argue none should be. If people followed the politics of Jesus, as represented by the Pope, instead of their American political party we’d be better off.

 

[FollowChrist34]

There is highlighting. And there is shrouding. He has highlighted these other issues, such as climate change and immigration, with clear, explicit language. And he’s shrouded issues such as abortion and SSM with vague commentary. It is possible to highlight issues without shrouding other issues.

The more time I have to think about this, the more I have to admit you are right. The Pope has every right to express opposition to the death penalty and to US “aggression” in the Middle East, he shares these views with his precessors John Paul and Benedict. In the main, I think most of the speech was pretty basic Christian “peace” and “love.” I am fine with the protect dignity, rights, environmental and immigration stuff too - good Christian commentary.

But with the Planned Parenthood controversy raging and Congress (and the USCCB) engaged in these current struggles over abortion restrictions, not to mention SSM and increasing threats to religious liberty from the Obama adminstration, not to address these issues before the country to Congress was, in my view, a little cowardly as opposed to “diplomatic” - simply because it gives comfort to the offenders - opens to the door to widespread misinterpretation of Christian doctrine, amongst the faithful and the secular. How is this spreading the Word?

But we are speaking as Catholics who live in this culture at this time. I suspect the Pope just wrote the speech from his point of view. There is a gap there.

 

[Mongo]

Yes, I just read it - I am a bit underwhelmed but he did, in all fairness, plainly condemn SSM and abortion - don’t blink and you’ll miss it - but it’s there in full view for any objective reader/listener. I do think he overemphasized abolishing the death penalty and a sort of international “non-intervention” mentality which can end up hurting people more than helping them. And we need to remember JP II was essentially of the same view on the death penalty before freaking out too much there (see link).

I think I would have picked four different great Americans: John Adams; Abraham Lincoln; Henry David Thoreau; Emily Dickinson. But there you go. Each to his own.

I consider myself a conservative Catholic - and, again, I can handle this - he has not wavered from Christian doctrine one iota. His slant is different from mine - but my bone to pick with him is not large. (the Iran deal maybe)

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html

If you over emphasize the wrong things, and don’t mention others does it matter if technically you don’t stray?

 

[Seamus_L]

If only he spoke with the clarity of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow on abortion and homosexuality.

 

[Mongo]

Very much an inspirational speech in a political sense. The speech writers knew that any mention of abortion or SSM would invite rejection and spite. Alienate the seculars and play right into the hands of the press. To borrow the well worn phrase, very much a Church of Nice effort.

Instead what you end up with is an impotent faith that appeals to those you want to convert by playing down to their level.

 

[ringil]

When my husband prays for me to convert and asks our kids be raised Catholic what am I supposed to say…

You are required to have your children raised Catholic. When you married your husband you agreed to this.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

There is highlighting. And there is shrouding. He has highlighted these other issues, such as climate change and immigration, with clear, explicit language. And he’s shrouded issues such as abortion and SSM with vague commentary. It is possible to highlight issues without shrouding other issues.

If the Pope wants the faithful and the church to place greater focus on some issues more than others then that is his prerogative.

 

[ringil]

If only he spoke with the clarity of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow on abortion and homosexuality.

I saw that coming!

 

[FollowChrist34]

If you over emphasize the wrong things, and don’t mention others does it matter if technically you don’t stray?

If the Pope had added two or three clear, strongly worded sentences - “unborn” - “redefinition of marriage” - using these phrases at certain spots in the exact same speech he delivered, I would be fine. I am not asking for a lot - and I can’t understand why he didn’t say just a wee bit more specific things on these issues (he is orthodox here; I know that). A balance - again I understand this is Congress he is talking to - and he is left wing politically.

But he did not achieve balance and I think he wants that - his left wing supporters are the ones who don’t want that. This is why I think it is unfortunate. This feeds misperception and I get accused of not being on board with the “new emphasis” of the Church. (which doesn’t exist) Or is that the Synod…

 

[Mongo]

The Pope’s speech to Congress was perfect.

Coming from a Catholic Pope, this can only mean one thing.

As far as his comments on same sex marriage…or lack there of…
Again…look at his view point from where he stood.
He is a loving father to all.
Same sex marriages/families and various other family arrangements have been around in one shape or another since the beginning of time. His concern is for all and where they are at this particular time. Yours might be a blessed ideal sacramental marriage and family. Be thankful! So few really have this.

His words were well chosen and did not exclude anyone…absolutely everyone was called to respond positively and lovingly to his message…including and especially the dour looking Supreme Court Justices front row seat who did finally stand for an O at the end.

If you are a devout catholic you will read that statement as inclusive of the unborn, but it is ambiguous to everyone else. The democrats will read it as from the time the mother takes the baby home until death. Why speak in front of congress if you aren’t going to be clear?

 

[Suudy]

If the Pope wants the faithful and the church to place greater focus on some issues more than others then that is his prerogative.

Of course it is. Who has said he can’t make that choice?

The point, though, is that many of us disagree. And in our disagreement on emphasis we are labeled being ashamed of being Catholic (see post #20 on this thread), or questioning the Catholicity of the pope (see post #44).

 

[Mongo]

If only he spoke with the clarity of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow on abortion and homosexuality.

his speech in front of the un a few years ago was very good.

 

[Mongo]

If the Pope wants the faithful and the church to place greater focus on some issues more than others then that is his prerogative.

It doesn’t matter. There is a natural hierarchy in catholic moral theology. You can’t simply elevate certain things because you have a preference. There is a context for everything.