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

[TCEL]

But when he makes comments that easily get twisted to a different meaning yet never seems to learn that his comments are going to be used as ammunition against Catholics it is disheartening. How often have we all heard “Who am I to judge?” As a mom of 8 I hear daily that the pope says catholic women should not reproduce like rabbits. Did he say these things? Yes. Are the taken out of context? Of course they are. The problem I have and what I can’t understand is WHY he keeps making these remarks knowing they are going to be used against us. I also don’t understand why he doesn’t mention things that are important like the abortion and gay marriage. I agree with him that we live in a disposable society. I’ve stated that myself many times. What’s difficult are the remarks he keeps putting out there that are used against Catholics.

I sympathize. I have a sibling who is an avowed atheist, and we can’t talk about faith, I can only go off their reactions. Early on when all these headlines were coming out about what the Pope said, they thought it was good, but for dubious reasons. I really get the feeling that they want to see the Church changed or destroyed. Truly.

However, I have another family member who is proud to be Catholic, but they received terrible catechesis and don’t practice. They love Pope Francis, but they still aren’t practicing. But, I bought them a collection of Pope Francis’ words so they could form their own perspective, unaffected by the media.

I have yet another family member who is a socialist. I like talking with them because they are very respectful. I mentioned that there is no principled reason to restrict marriage to two people, and they agreed using one of Pope Francis’ quotes. I simply suggested that perhaps they should read his words a bit more closely. To which they said they intended on reading Laudato Si. I said “Terrific,” and left it at that. Who knows what seeds will be planted?

If I can leave my confusion and baggage aside, perhaps it won’t be passed on to others.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think we Texans have always had a little more understanding. We have the privilege of knowing more of these “invaders” in person and that always lessens ignorance. Also, we have the rather unique position of being from the state where illegal immigrants once crossed into Mexico, along with legal immigrants. Though it started out as Spain, then Mexico, then we had the dictator, but the point is, many of the crossers like Davy Crockett swimming the Sabine instead of the Rio Grande. Then we also started by fighting and dying alongside Mexican nationals here in Texas. Heck, many Texans were legally nationalized Mexicans.

Yes. Texas was once a Republic and a country. It is a very large state, and I can’t see how the stereotype of Texans comes close to capturing its reality and diversity. Austin, for instance, is the state Capitol and the seat of the conservative state government. But UT is located there as well, the local governmental offices are nearly all held by liberal Democrats, and Austin is a liberal city. The first European immigrants to South Texas were Irish Catholics, and the region remains significantly Catholic.

Along the Rio Grande, between Brownsville and McAllen, a distance of nearly a hundred mile, there is a border fence. It is located well inside the U.S., a half mile or a mile, and U.S. citizens live and work on the southern side of the fence. There are U.S. farms south of the fence. This is not at all apparent on media videos. There are paved roads throughtout this area and traffic constantly moves in and out of the southern area beyond the border fence since it is wide open at every roadway crossing. In remote areas, I have stood along the banks of the Rio Grande and any person who could walk could easily cross it underdetected in a minute or so. There is typically no border patrol presence on the southern side of the fence as it extends to the Rio Grande. An immigrant who is desperate for help will usually have to go and try to find a border patrol agent. The danger to immigrants is from criminal gangs along the southern banks of the Rio Grande, and once immigrants cross the Rio Grande and into the U.S. they are safe. The border fence is politics.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That is the past…a past that has seen almost all peoples migrate, conquer, be conquered, enslave, and be enslaved…I’m not talking about them…I’m talking about us…at least those of us who can understand that all societies evolve…who live here and now, and don’t want to lose our nations, our heritage, and our future because somebody else, for whatever reason they can rationalize, believes they have the right to take it away from us…as payback.

Those of you who want to destroy societies because you believe you have some kind of righteous vendetta from the past…go for it. I would suggest, however, that those from south of the border go to Spain, instead of the U.S.,…and take back what the Spanish Conquistadors, accompanied by their Catholic priests, stole from them…take back all the lives lost through the Conquistadors’ conquests…the lives of slaughtered and enslaved Indians, of blacks imported from Africa to South America…make them pay…and, the American Indians can go to Spain and England, and make them pay too…and the Irish can make the English pay, and the Scots…and, the English can go to France, and pay them back for Williams the Conqueror…and the Greeks can go to Rome, the Egyptians to Greece, and pay them all back…rape, pillage, and burn, because it is righteous vengeance…and of course, we haven’t even begun to talk about the Chinese in Asia, the African tribes…the Russians and the peoples from the steppes…or about the American Indians who displaced prior peoples…

But, go ahead…burn us all with your righteous indignation…

Rest assured I come with no desire to burn anyone. But when people fear losing their nation and I’ve heard that a lot from Americans over the course of the past several yrs. I never quite know what to make of it. Because I don’t understand what nation it is they fear losing. The fear certainly can not be because of new faces. Because the Pope spoke of those faces, including those faces coming north, and said not to fear them. They come for better opportunity. And he said is that not what all of us want for our children? He didn’t say have them go to Spain. He said to not fear the foreigner. That most of us descend from foreigners. To not repeat the same sins when a stranger is within our midst. To not be taken aback by the numbers. To not turn our backs on our neighbors. But to see their faces. Hear their stories. And to respond humanely, justly and fraternally. He instructed us to avoid the temptation to discard even whatever may prove troublesome. To live by the Golden Rule. So it seems to me if we would only strive to heed the Pope’s message on this, the US is not being lost. But rather it remains and in this way merely grows closer to the spirit of Christ. God bless America.

 

[Thorolfr]

Rest assured I come with no desire to burn anyone. But when people fear losing their nation and I’ve heard that a lot from Americans over the course of the past several yrs. I never quite know what to make of it. Because I don’t understand what nation it is they fear losing. The fear certainly can not be because of new faces. Because the Pope spoke of those faces, including those faces coming north, and said not to fear them. They come for better opportunity. And he said is that not what all of us want for our children? He didn’t say have them go to Spain. He said to not fear the foreigner. That most of us descend from foreigners. To not repeat the same sins when a stranger is within our midst. To not be taken aback by the numbers. To not turn our backs on our neighbors. But to see their faces. Hear their stories. And to respond humanely, justly and fraternally. He instructed us to avoid the temptation to discard even whatever may prove troublesome. To live by the Golden Rule. So it seems to me if we would only strive to heed the Pope’s message on this, the US is not being lost. But rather it remains and in this way merely grows closer to the spirit of Christ. God bless America.

 

[pnewton]

In remote areas, I have stood along the banks of the Rio Grande and any person who could walk could easily cross it underdetected in a minute or so. There is typically no border patrol presence on the southern side of the fence as it extends to the Rio Grande. An immigrant who is desperate for help will usually have to go and try to find a border patrol agent. The danger to immigrants is from criminal gangs along the southern banks of the Rio Grande, and once immigrants cross the Rio Grande and into the U.S. they are safe. The border fence is politics.

I went to Big Bend last year for my first time and walked along the Texas side of the river. It was amazing. Throughout the park and outside the park, I saw little immigration presence as well. I sure didn’t walk around with the fear that others have expressed. And even though this was a National Park, it was a huge expanse that could be easily crossed.

 

[JakeG]

I am astonished at what I can only call the unhinged reaction to Pope Francis’ address to Congress.

In the end all his critics are saying is, “That’s not the speech I would have made had I been addressing Congress.”

Really, that’s it. No one is accusing him of saying anything unchristian or anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine. All the criticism I’ve seen boils down to just one point. “I would have given a different speech.”

Fair enough. But no one here is addressing Congress. No one here is, so to speak, in the hot seat.

In the end it is Pope Francis who has to decide what is the most effective manner of communicating the Christian message to Congress as a whole. That will always be a judgement call. Maybe he got it right. Maybe not. But I think it fair to assume that his judgment would be better informed than that of anyone here.

So why not calm down and consider that maybe, just maybe, Pope Francis knows how to do his job and that Monday morning quarterbacking is a pretty useless practice?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Planned Parenthood Slams Pope Francis Over Abortion Speech, Women’s Rights

ibtimes.com/planned-parenthood-slams-pope-francis-over-abortion-speech-womens-rights-2115020

By the way, their 99% figure for contraception, well there is a 98% figure which has been criticized and analysed by various sources in the past:

washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/have-98-percent-of-catholic-women-used-contraceptives-not-quite/2012/02/14/gIQAZszTDR_blog.html

deaconden.org/planned-parenthood-grossly-mislabels-98-of-catholic-women/#.VgfbH-d4WJI

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Well said, Jake!

 

[MaryT777]

Well said, Jake!

I agree.

Mary.

 

[mjs2001]

I haven’t seen anger, just disappointment. If you don’t know why Catholics and other Christians are disheartened by his speech, then re-read the posts. I think that it essentially comes down to his speech being little more than a lukewarm political speech. I don’t even think that he mentioned Jesus once, did he? I feel like he cares about the material needs if the poor, which of course is wonderful, but that he doesn’t care about spiritual needs–especially the spiritual needs of obedient Catholics. And I “would” think that his judgment would be better informed than us in such matters, but I think his speech shows us otherwise.

 

[Barricade]

I think the message and example of Pope Francis is leading to the changing of more hearts than we know. People are upset that he didn’t talk more about abortion and gay marriage, but there are some things I think we need to consider.

Pro-abortionists on the Left will often berate people on the Right saying that they want to see these children born but don’t care about whether they are fed, clothed, educated, etc. They use this argument to try and shift a sense of guilt away from themselves; they consider a moral failing on the Right to exist and they key in on that in arguments. Well, with Pope Francis this argument is powerless. This is a Pope who has gone on and on about the importance of helping the poor and marginalized, and yet this is a Pope who also believes abortion to be a tremendous evil, so now what’s the excuse of the pro-abortion Left? You can’t use that argument you use against the typical person on the Right in America anymore. This is a Pope who unequivocally takes the side of the vulnerable both born and unborn so now the question then becomes for someone on the Left: you want house, feed, and educate children, but why won’t you allow them all to be born?

We may not see reactions from people on the Left publicly, but I would bet that many cafeteria Catholics on the Left who are pro-abortion are starting to reflect more on this and feeling their hearts turn towards the Church’s teaching on this issue. I hope and pray that this is the case.

 

[mikekle]

I am astonished at what I can only call the unhinged reaction to Pope Francis’ address to Congress.

In the end all his critics are saying is, “That’s not the speech I would have made had I been addressing Congress.”

Really, that’s it. No one is accusing him of saying anything unchristian or anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine. All the criticism I’ve seen boils down to just one point. “I would have given a different speech.”

Fair enough. But no one here is addressing Congress. No one here is, so to speak, in the hot seat.

In the end it is Pope Francis who has to decide what is the most effective manner of communicating the Christian message to Congress as a whole. That will always be a judgement call. Maybe he got it right. Maybe not. But I think it fair to assume that his judgment would be better informed than that of anyone here.

So why not calm down and consider that maybe, just maybe, Pope Francis knows how to do his job and that Monday morning quarterbacking is a pretty useless practice?

As the leader of the catholic church, most people were assuming he would at least address some of the major current problems, number one would likely be abortion, as the latest numbers put the deaths at close to 57 million, to put that in perspective, the Roman empire was attributed with killing 100 million people in its reign, the US abortion rate is halfway there to having the same figure!!!

Instead of directly addressing this, he kind of alluded to it, but in just one short sentence. This is fooling many people into think the catholic church is changing its views, Ive seen so many non-religious people saying they are so glad the Pope is not talking about ‘out dated’ things like the SSM and abortion, this is why everyone in the secular world is so excited about his visit, its really only because he is not saying anything they disagree with.

As Ive said before, dont you admit its a bit strange after the leader of the catholic church visits what is probably the most hedonistic nation on the planet and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the non-religious crowds up in arms in disagreement about WHAT HE DID SAY?

 

[SWolf]

As the leader of the catholic church, most people were assuming he would at least address some of the major current problems, number one would likely be abortion, as the latest numbers put the deaths at close to 57 million, to put that in perspective, the Roman empire was attributed with killing 100 million people in its reign, the US abortion rate is halfway there to having the same figure!!!

Instead of directly addressing this, he kind of alluded to it, but in just one short sentence. This is fooling many people into think the catholic church is changing its views, Ive seen so many non-religious people saying they are so glad the Pope is not talking about ‘out dated’ things like the SSM and abortion, this is why everyone in the secular world is so excited about his visit, its really only because he is not saying anything they disagree with.

As Ive said before, dont you admit its a bit strange after the leader of the catholic church visits what is probably the most hedonistic nation on the planet and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the non-religious crowds up in arms in disagreement about WHAT HE DID SAY?

The secularists are not being converted to the Church. The secularists thinks they are converting the Church.

 

[pianistclare]

I am astonished at what I can only call the unhinged reaction to Pope Francis’ address to Congress.

In the end all his critics are saying is, “That’s not the speech I would have made had I been addressing Congress.”

Really, that’s it. No one is accusing him of saying anything unchristian or anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine. All the criticism I’ve seen boils down to just one point. “I would have given a different speech.”

Fair enough. But no one here is addressing Congress. No one here is, so to speak, in the hot seat.

In the end it is Pope Francis who has to decide what is the most effective manner of communicating the Christian message to Congress as a whole. That will always be a judgement call. Maybe he got it right. Maybe not. But I think it fair to assume that his judgment would be better informed than that of anyone here.

So why not calm down and consider that maybe, just maybe, Pope Francis knows how to do his job and that Monday morning quarterbacking is a pretty useless practice?

 

[JakeG]

And I “would” think that his judgment would be better informed than us in such matters, but I think his speech shows us otherwise.

Of this I am certain. Pope Francis gave his words careful thought, prayed for guidance, and delivered the speech that he judged would convey the Christian message in the most effective manner possible

What you are saying is that you could do Pope Francis’ job better than he could do it himself.

Maybe you could. I don’t know.

But do you understand that I find it an unlikely proposition?

 

[Neofight]

I am astonished at what I can only call the unhinged reaction to Pope Francis’ address to Congress.

In the end all his critics are saying is, “That’s not the speech I would have made had I been addressing Congress.”

Really, that’s it. No one is accusing him of saying anything unchristian or anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine. All the criticism I’ve seen boils down to just one point. “I would have given a different speech.”

Fair enough. But no one here is addressing Congress. No one here is, so to speak, in the hot seat.

In the end it is Pope Francis who has to decide what is the most effective manner of communicating the Christian message to Congress as a whole. That will always be a judgement call. Maybe he got it right. Maybe not. But I think it fair to assume that his judgment would be better informed than that of anyone here.

So why not calm down and consider that maybe, just maybe, Pope Francis knows how to do his job and that Monday morning quarterbacking is a pretty useless practice?

Your assessment is hard to argue with.

Because of the lack of humility, everyone knows better than everyone else, or so It seems.

As you continue here at CAF, you are going to see plenty of the same thing.

Hardly a day goes by without long lamentations about how the priest, deacon, or faithful were not reverent enough at the liturgy, how one recognized and authorized form of the Mass is better than another, how the Church was so much better or worse before or after Vatican II.

But, such is the way of the world.

 

[JakeG]

But, such is the way of the world.

Yep. I guess it is.

Thanks

 

[saggal]

Jake:

I’ve said it before on this forum – before Pope Francis, I thought the phrase “more Catholic than the Pope” was a joke.

But there are many, many people on these forums that feel they know more about the Church, its Catechism, rubrics, etc., than His Holiness.

It’s not only frustrating and sad, at times it borders on the ludicrous.

 

[Thomas_White]

I haven’t seen anger, just disappointment. If you don’t know why Catholics and other Christians are disheartened by his speech, then re-read the posts. I think that it essentially comes down to his speech being little more than a lukewarm political speech. I don’t even think that he mentioned Jesus once, did he? I feel like he cares about the material needs if the poor, which of course is wonderful, but that he doesn’t care about spiritual needs–especially the spiritual needs of obedient Catholics. And I “would” think that his judgment would be better informed than us in such matters, but I think his speech shows us otherwise.

I haven’t seen anger, just disappointment. If you don’t know why Catholics and other Christians are disheartened by his speech, then re-read the posts. I think that it essentially comes down to his speech being little more than a lukewarm political speech. I don’t even think that he mentioned Jesus once, did he? I feel like he cares about the material needs if the poor, which of course is wonderful, but that he doesn’t care about spiritual needs–especially the spiritual needs of obedient Catholics. And I “would” think that his judgment would be better informed than us in such matters, but I think his speech shows us otherwise.

I think it is a question of perception and understanding of this pope. It is a rather grand conclusion to say “Catholics and other Christians are disheartened by his speech…” Are there not large, enthusiastic crowds greeting Pope Francis?

What are the spiritual needs of an “obedient” Catholic? Is it an insistence and perpetual focus on the sin of abortion? I see that as a peculiar spiritual need and more like a need of one side of partisan politics and the political class. Try rather to understand the psychological correlation between a constant focus on abortion and looking the other way relative to clerical abuse.

 

[sps49]

I am astonished at what I can only call the unhinged reaction to Pope Francis’ address to Congress.

In the end all his critics are saying is, “That’s not the speech I would have made had I been addressing Congress.”

Really, that’s it. No one is accusing him of saying anything unchristian or anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine. All the criticism I’ve seen boils down to just one point. “I would have given a different speech.”

Fair enough. But no one here is addressing Congress. No one here is, so to speak, in the hot seat.

In the end it is Pope Francis who has to decide what is the most effective manner of communicating the Christian message to Congress as a whole. That will always be a judgement call. Maybe he got it right. Maybe not. But I think it fair to assume that his judgment would be better informed than that of anyone here.

So why not calm down and consider that maybe, just maybe, Pope Francis knows how to do his job and that Monday morning quarterbacking is a pretty useless practice?

Your experience with “unhinged” is somewhat different than mine, methinks. A difference in perception can account for this. Opinions surely range from the “benign to unhinged”, but to say that the bulk reside at the “unhinged” end of the continuum is hyperbole. I have also experienced different critiques than you did, critiques nuanced and not so nuanced, but I would not characterize them as being “I would have given a different speech,” in fact, even people who have an axe to grind will allow the Pope his say, and thus his dignity.