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

[sarah_j]

When Pope Francis spoke of those issues he did so by providing Catholic teaching which transcends partisan politics. The Catholic Church opposes both abortion and capital punishment and AGW. It is that simple.

Once again : the reason people are discouraged is because the Pope
didn’t speak out against abortion to Congress,
even though it is a “grave sin” according to the catechism of the Church
and is very much on the table in the Senate and House at this time.

Global warming and capital punishment are not of the same gravity as abortion.
The Church approves of capital punishment in certain circumstances.

 

[Suudy]

When Pope Francis spoke of those issues he did so by providing Catholic teaching which transcends partisan politics. The Catholic Church opposes both abortion and capital punishment and AGW. It is that simple.

Right. But that’s not the point. How did he transcend partisan politics by speaking clearly on partisan issues like climate change and capital punishment, but become part of partisan bickering if he spoke clearly on partisan issues like abortion and SSM?

 

[Suudy]

Which is has been doing and will be doing big time for 100s of years to come just from our current emissions (at this point there is no hope for sustainability, only reliance to cut the losses), not counting what more we will be profligately emitting on into the future with even a greater death toll perhaps over the next 100,000 years IF we don’t cease and desist from such harms.

We’ve spent the last 25 years disproving that utter nonsense from folks who have no idea at all, bec they have not made even the slightest effort to stop their contributions to this harm and killing. That is, we have reduced our GHG emissions and other concomitant pollution that harms and kills by over 60% below our 1990 emissions level cost effectively, saving us money without lowering our living standard.

After the great inspiration from Laudato Si and the tremendous example of Pope Francis and his actions, his “Little Ways of Environmental Healing,” we are beginning even to sacrifice a bit for the sake of the life of the world. Not a whole lot at this point, not enough to cause us much discomfort, but something to help us lower our GHG emissions and other pollution even further – such as raising our AC thermostat by 3 degrees and eating less food (which has the added benefit of bringing us into a healthier life style, since we are overweight), and other such Little Ways of Environmental Healing.

What we have managed to do involved turning to God and a lot of prayer and effort. God is truly great and will show those who seek His help the way. So much so it will come as a great and tremendous surprise.

God bless you.

All of this, and you didn’t address the ultimate point of my post: failing to fight climate change is not the same thing and intentionally murdering an innocent human being. What good is having a healthy planet, but have no right to even live in it? Combating AGW is not the mother of all pro-life issues. It is contingent on the right to life.

 

[Thomas_White]

Right. But that’s not the point. How did he transcend partisan politics by speaking clearly on partisan issues like climate change and capital punishment, but become part of partisan bickering if he spoke clearly on partisan issues like abortion and SSM?

He did speak clearly on all these issues. I would suggest it was your perception that didn’t hear it.

 

[AndyP2014]

There was a frequent poster here, cmatt25, who cited this exact slice of scripture to justify the same kind of moral equivalency between abortion and failing to feed the hungry. But let’s be clear here. Nobody is saying we should ignore the hungry. Nobody is saying we should take no action to help the hungry.

What is being said is that there is a hierarchy of evil. Some actions (and inactions) are more evil than others. And when we make a decision on where to invest our limited ability to act (as finite creatures we can only do so much), our effort should be focused on the greater evil. That’s not to say there should be no effort to combat hunger, homelessness, and poverty in general. It really is a both/and approach.

Which goes back to the OP and my earlier comments. The only criticism I have is that Papa Francis could have been explicit in both climate change and abortion, both capital punishment and same sex marriage, both immigration and euthanasia.

First I am not cmatt25 and I am not talking about some kind of moral equivalency false or otherwise. Yes it is clear that murder is more evil that being a thief and that coveting your neighbors wife isn’t as bad as adultery. You know though, I am not exactly interested in finding out first hand exactly how much worse my eternal punishment would be for one mortal sin over another. I hope to avoid hell altogether and I am firm of frequent confession for that reason.

As for the Pope’s emphasis or not certain subjects, IMHO folks like Pelosi and her ilk are just willfully ignorant and don’t want to learn, otherwise the Church and this Pope have been perfectly clear on it’s moral teaching on SSM and abortion. I would expect even earthworms have caught on by now. However, a lot of faithful Catholics have difficulty understanding the difference between the morality of CP in 1800 America and CP now in the 21st century. The same is true for the morality of how this country handles immigration over say a country like Hungry. I dare say the we are the world masters on integrating new peoples into our society. We certainly have to most experience at it. As far a the quote that I used from Matthew’s gospel those are sins of omission as opposed sins of commission. All faithful Catholics would line go to confession for a sin of commission, say a sexual sin. How many of us would go to confession because we took no notice of the beggar on the street when we had a spare dollar in our pocket?

 

[Suudy]

He did speak clearly on all these issues. I would suggest it was your perception that didn’t hear it.

Not just my perception. From the link, right here on CAF:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26223

In his address [for the full text, see the link below] the Pontiff openly prodded American lawmakers on immigration, climate change, arms trafficking, and the abolition of the death penalty. In more subtle language, he also reaffirmed the Church’s opposition to abortion, warned about attacks on the family, and repeated his call for respect of religious freedom.

And I could cite several more people who viewed his comments on abortion and SSM as vague. But let’s go to the actual text.
This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.
Pretty clear. Capital punishment should be abolished–globally. There’s no other way to interpret that.

Now, can you find me an equally clear statement on abortion or SSM? Anywhere he calls directly for the abolition of abortion?

 

[Peebo]

Is climate change a partisan issue within Congress? Is capital punishment a partisan issue in Congress? Papa Francis spoke on these partisan issues with clarity.

Here’s the point. When I asked why he was vague on abortion and SSM, the response has been:
Because he was speaking as our shepherd and not as the spokesman for your political party.
or
“Wahhhhh! The Pope didn’t mention my favorite pet social issue! Wahhhhhh! I’m so ashamed to be Catholic!”
or
I don’t believe Pope Francis spoke to Congress with any intent of wading into the partisan politics of the moment.
So, people say he didn’t speak directly to these because he didn’t want to wade into partisan politics. Yet he spoke directly on climate change and capital punishment, which are partisan issues. So which is it?

He spoke on his opposition to capital punishment as have the previous two Popes…he spoke on climate change as a worldwide problem…he has the right as the head of the Catholic Church …he speaks to the whole world…not just US politicians…you are the one who is implying he is preaching partisan politics because it doesn’t sit with your political views. Wahhhh…don’t blame his Holiness of playing politics because of your bias

 

[Thomas_White]

Not just my perception. From the link, right here on CAF:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26223

In his address [for the full text, see the link below] the Pontiff openly prodded American lawmakers on immigration, climate change, arms trafficking, and the abolition of the death penalty. In more subtle language, he also reaffirmed the Church’s opposition to abortion, warned about attacks on the family, and repeated his call for respect of religious freedom.

And I could cite several more people who viewed his comments on abortion and SSM as vague. But let’s go to the actual text.
This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.
Pretty clear. Capital punishment should be abolished–globally. There’s no other way to interpret that.

Now, can you find me an equally clear statement on abortion or SSM? Anywhere he calls directly for the abolition of abortion?

Was there anything unclear about the comment that human life at all its stages must be respected?

 

[Suudy]

First I am not cmatt25

I never said you were.

and I am not talking about some kind of moral equivalency false or otherwise. Yes it is clear that murder is more evil that being a thief and that coveting your neighbors wife isn’t as bad as adultery.

Good, then you agree. Chopping up babies in the womb and selling their body parts is worse than failing to feed a starving child.

You know though, I am not exactly interested in finding out first hand exactly how much worse my eternal punishment would be for one mortal sin over another. I hope to avoid hell altogether and I am firm of frequent confession for that reason.

Who said otherwise? I’m talking about a prioritization of effort.

However, a lot of faithful Catholics have difficulty understanding the difference between the morality of CP in 1800 America and CP now in the 21st century. The same is true for the morality of how this country handles immigration over say a country like Hungry. I dare say the we are the world masters on integrating new peoples into our society. We certainly have to most experience at it.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. I’ve met very few Catholics who think of capital punishment or immigration in any way that approaches a 19th century viewpoint. In fact, I can think of only one CAF poster who sill argues the Church’s unchanged teaching on the nature of justice and capital punishment. And in real life I don’t know a single Catholic that thinks capital punishment should be used. I think the Church’s position on capital punishment and immigration are just as well known as abortion and SSM.

As far a the quote that I used from Matthew’s gospel those are sins of omission as opposed sins of commission. All faithful Catholics would line go to confession for a sin of commission, say a sexual sin. How many of us would go to confession because we took no notice of the beggar on the street when we had a spare dollar in our pocket?

There is a difference between taking “no notice” and taking notice and intentionally ignoring them. If one took “no notice” then there is nothing to confess because there is nothing known. You can only confess what you know.

But there is a difference between a beggar on the street and a starving child. It was my habit when I lived in the Seattle area and took the bus and walked to work to carry McDonald’s and Denny’s gift certificates. How many of the beggars on the street do you think were glad to receive those? Very, very few. I even had one sneer and say “I need beer money, not food money.”

And I can’t think of a single person in RL, or a poster here on CAF, that wouldn’t drop everything they were doing to help a starving child. Our parish in the Seattle area did daily collections at local supermarkets collecting day old bread and other foodstuffs and delivering them to families in need. And it was done with a cheerful heart. And when I participated in those deliveries, they were never to beggars on the street. They were to homes, to shelters, to food banks, etc.

So, let’s not pretend that just because many of us who strenuously oppose abortion and other direct acts of evil do not also actively help those in need.

 

[Suudy]

Was there anything unclear about the comment that human life at all its stages must be respected?

First, it was in the context of capital punishment. Second, he directly called out capital punishment. So it was an oblique reference to abortion and euthanasia. Why be explicit on a partisan issue such as capital punishment, and be vague on others?

 

[Suudy]

He spoke on his opposition to capital punishment as have the previous two Popes…he spoke on climate change as a worldwide problem…he has the right as the head of the Catholic Church …

Of course he has that right. Who said otherwise?

he speaks to the whole world…not just US politicians…you are the one who is implying he is preaching partisan politics because it doesn’t sit with your political views. Wahhhh…don’t blame his Holiness of playing politics because of your bias

Again, you are missing the point. He spoke directly to partisan issues, such as climate change and capital punishment, but that’s not “playing politics.” But if he were to say something like “Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of abortion. Not only do I support them…” it would suddenly be partisan. Right.

 

[canis73]

First, it was in the context of capital punishment. Second, he directly called out capital punishment. So it was an oblique reference to abortion and euthanasia. Why be explicit on a partisan issue such as capital punishment, and be vague on others?

He said “unborn”. Do you mean he meant it in the context of capital punishment for the unborn?

 

[Thomas_White]

First, it was in the context of capital punishment. Second, he directly called out capital punishment. So it was an oblique reference to abortion and euthanasia. Why be explicit on a partisan issue such as capital punishment, and be vague on others?

What is your point? What are you trying to imply?

 

[Suudy]

He said “unborn”. Do you mean he meant it in the context of capital punishment for the unborn?

Where did he say the word unborn? Go here:

angelusnews.com/news/national/read-the-full-text-of-pope-francis-address-to-us-congress-9016/#.VgXXqstVhBd

for the full text. The word unborn was not used. The closest was:
The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.
And that was the transition sentence to the paragraph on capital punishment.

 

[Suudy]

What is your point? What are you trying to imply?

How many posts do I have to make on here. The point is that I think it was a tactical mistake for him to explicitly condemn capital punishment and to obliquely reference abortion.; to explicitly call for curbing climate change, and hint at the problems of SSM. I think he should have been equally clear. That’s been my point all along here.

But the arguments against my view are that it would have been too partisan, or that he was trying to transcend politics. But that can’t be the case since he explicitly spoke about some partisan issues. So, I’m back to my original question. Why was he explicit on some issues but not others?

 

[canis73]

Where did he say the word unborn? Go here:

angelusnews.com/news/national/read-the-full-text-of-pope-francis-address-to-us-congress-9016/#.VgXXqstVhBd

for the full text. The word unborn was not used. The closest was:
The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.
And that was the transition sentence to the paragraph on capital punishment.

You are right. Was confused with his speech at the UN. Nevermind.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

How many posts do I have to make on here. The point is that I think it was a tactical mistake for him to explicitly condemn capital punishment and to obliquely reference abortion.; to explicitly call for curbing climate change, and hint at the problems of SSM. I think he should have been equally clear. That’s been my point all along here.

But the arguments against my view are that it would have been too partisan, or that he was trying to transcend politics. But that can’t be the case since he explicitly spoke about some partisan issues. So, I’m back to my original question. Why was he explicit on some issues but not others?

Phil Lawler sort of asked the same question in his submission to Catholic Culture as below. He also offers a possible answer and hopes for a balance before the Pope concludes his U.S. visit.

Why does Pope Francis back liberal causes directly, conservative causes subtly?

Pope Francis challenged Americans of both liberal and conservative political sympathies in his historic address to Congress on September 24. But his objections to conservative stands were clear and direct, while his criticism of liberals subtle and oblique. Why?

…

Is it because he knows that the American defenders of life and of marriage really are in sympathy with the Catholic Church, whereas proponents of abortion and homosexuality are fundamentally hostile? Because he knows that he must first establish some common ground with liberal secularists (including some who masquerade as Catholics) before he can expect any positive response? Because he realizes that he can encourage pro-lifers indirectly, and the message will come through loud and clear? Maybe the Pope is reaching out to the lost sheep, confident that the others will await his return.

Still I hope that before he ends his American sojourn, the Holy Father will find an occasion to reassure the stalwart Catholics who have been caught up for years in the culture wars, defending life and marriage. The World Meeting of Families would be an ideal occasion for the Pope to repeat, in his way, the message that the father of the Prodigal Son gave to the elder brother: “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.”

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1113

 

[seaton2005]

Peebo:
He spoke on his opposition to capital punishment as have the previous two Popes…he spoke on climate change as a worldwide problem…he has the right as the head of the Catholic Church …he speaks to the whole world…not just US politicians…you are the one who is implying he is preaching partisan politics because it doesn’t sit with your political views. Wahhhh…don’t blame his Holiness of playing politics because of your bias

Great point Peebo! Well said.

 

[pontoon]

I am so disappointed in the Pope. I feel like Galileo. The visit was suppose to be about FAMILY. We kill 150 babies every hour in this country. The Pope did not mention it 150 times during his visit. Climate change really. We don’t even know if it is real. There is no proof. Who is advising this guy?

Stop the death penalty Please how many murders are executed in this country in a year? How about don’t fund planned parenthood.

Iran nuke deal is good. Are you kidding? Iran’s first nuclear missile should be at the Vatican not Israel.

What about all the single family parents in the US? Not much said about how many young families are growing up without a father and on welfare with 3 or brothers or sisters all with different fathers. Not even mentioned. Who is advising this guy because they have no idea about what is happening in the inner city.

What about Marriage? It is still a Sacrament. I did not hear much about it

What about heeling of the divorced and remarried Catholics who do not believe in annulments. Do you know how many Catholics would love to return to the Church. These families raise their children Catholic. Maybe people should look at the Orthodox Church they have Apostolic Succession and do not ex-communicate their followers.

This Pope missed the mark on the Family. He gets a BIG F on his teaching. I don’t feel Catholic anymore. Very Disappointed. You can kick me off now but at least I know someone read it. Believe me there are many disappointed and upset Catholics

 

[AndyP2014]

But there is a difference between a beggar on the street and a starving child. It was my habit when I lived in the Seattle area and took the bus and walked to work to carry McDonald’s and Denny’s gift certificates. How many of the beggars on the street do you think were glad to receive those? Very, very few. I even had one sneer and say “I need beer money, not food money.”

You should be lauded for your efforts but, you have made the same mistake that I and many others have made. You give but with a condition based on what you think they need.
Do you not know what is wrong here. The problem is that you by conditioning your gift, your trying to control them. “I will give to you but, only if you behave as I think you should.” If you gave them cash, your right, some maybe even many, will abuse your gift. That isn’t your concern. That is between them and the just judge of us all. Can any of us honestly say that we have never abused the gifts that our heavenly father has given us. I can’t. He still gives to me freely every day. None of us deserve any of it. So one man wanted beer, but at least he was honest. What of the others. Could it not be that one needed a blanket for warmth, or another need medicine for a cold. What good would a McDonald’s gift card be for them.