Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Donald or The Francis?
From the front page of the New York Times online at this very hour:
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRLINER — Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump“is not Christian” because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico.
Getting hit with this for the first time as we were recording the Ricochet Podcast this morning, I responded squeamishly (to the immense amusement of our house Episcopalian, Rob Long), arguing that I owe fidelity to the Supreme pontiff only on matters of faith and morals–which is, of course, strictly true, but didn’t quite solve my problem.
We Catholics owe the pope a certain respect –he is, after all, the head of the oldest institution on earth and the direct heir, in unbroken apostolic succession, of St. Peter himself. But how — how — do we maintain even a patina of reverence when the man insists on becoming intensely political (as when, during his visit to Mexico, he went to the border to denounce this country’s immigration policy), when he says things that are simply unfounded (as when he claims we face an environmental apocalypse), and when he says things that are — well, that are just foolish (as in his attack on The Donald this morning. Has the pontiff ever noticed the walls that surround the Vatican?)
As I say, all this makes me squeamish — and I hereby throw it open to discussion to my friends here on Ricochet, in particular my wise fellow Catholics. Joseph Stanko? katievs? Are you there?
Published in Immigration, Religion & Philosophy
Barack Obama would like you all to know that when it comes to the wall, Pope Francis didn’t build that.
This unreconstructed heretic doesn’t think less of Donald Trump’s profession of his Christian identity because he wants to build a wall. This unreconstructed heretic thinks less of Donald Trump’s profession of his Christian identity because he didn’t think he had ever asked God for forgiveness and because he started to put his offering in the communion plate.
katie,
Your defense of the Pope is solid. What is obvious is that the media is gunning for him. He and his people need to realize just how craven the media is. They are not just irreligious they are anti-religious. They are looking for an opportunity to make trouble.
I don’t know what the solution is but at least forewarned is forearmed.
Regards,
Jim
I’m not convinced the NLMSM is moral enough to be religious, irreligious, or anti-religious. They’re looking for an opportunity to make trouble for ratings and because it’sthe Right that they’re causing trouble about.
Eric Hines
I question Trumps Christianity too. I doubt the man has ever cracked a bible. Heck I’d be surprised if he could even roughly paraphrase any part of it.
Pope Francis. Not a fan.
Ah, a solution offers itself. Pack up all 20 million or so illegals (no, I never believed the 11 million number that the Dems like to use), and ship them all to the Vatican, where the Pope will welcome them and provide them with food, housing, health care, free college, i-phones, entry to heaven, and other assorted material and spiritual perks. Oh, yeah, and with fishes and loaves, since that’s the way miracles are done.
Until now, I had been skeptical of Trump’s deportation plans, because Mexico sure as hell wasn’t going to take these people back. But now, we have an infallible decree that they are welcome, er, wherever.
By the way, will this Pope be Socialist Bernie’s VP choice if Bernie gets the nomination?
The reporter’s name is Phil Pullella. He “covers Italy and the Vatican for Reuters”. Looking at who he follows on his Twitter page, I see only liberal publications, including the far-Left Guardian and Mother Jones. The only two individuals he follows that I can immediately identify as conservative are Ross Douthat and Elizabeth Scalia.
Sadly he’s not eligible, not a Natural Born Citizen.
Oh? He wasn’t born in Canada? Well, it’s not as if Bernie gives a damn about the Constitution anyway.
Doesn’t the Pope officially speak for the Church? Doesn’t that mean that sometimes he should keep his mouth shut on things that aren’t the Church’s business since his every utterance has an imprimatur of official-ness?
It’s interesting that this Pope keeps having this same problem surface over and over again. My mother use to tell me that if you keep having the same problem with different people in different places: its YOU.
I think the Pope has some communication skills problems.
He won’t. Rube will tear the border down so fast that Francis won’t have anything to complain about.
Do you believe that it is is true, as a matter of Catholic doctrine, that “[Trump] is not Christian if he has said things like that”?
Further evidence that Martin Luther was right about Popery.
How would Trump have responded if he were the one who said those words (and he has certainly called into question the faith of other candidates)?
“Why do you think I was talking about Trump? I didn’t say his name. You said his name. I was just talking generally. Don’t forget, I didn’t just talk about walls, I also talked about bridges. Did Donald think I was talking about him? I guess he must not be building bridges.”
What the Pope said, if accurately translated and in context, is perfectly defensible. He does not say “walls bad.” He says there must be more than walls, that we cannot allow walls to prevent us from helping those in need. Or at least that is how I see it.
Imagine if the Donald had responded with saying “yes, I agree, and this is how I am planning to reach out when I am president…”
Francis is not a serious person (especially in his off-the-cuff remarks), and the press are not serious people, so expecting anything serious to come from such a dialogue is fundamentally unserious.
But I come here not to condemn Francis or Donald, but Peter. The New York Times. Again. We’ve had this conversation. I speak from love. You must break this habit. It harms not only yourself, but those around you. Do not encourage vulnerable young people to refer to this organ of the opposition to all that is right and good. Please.
Well, gird your loins because the Pope has a habit of confusing (to put it charitably) the faithful.
His straw man argument about those who only speak of walls was uncalled for. I don’t support Trump but the Pope shouldn’t have called out “this man” – even though he ended up saying he would give him the benefit of the doubt. Now, had he called out other politicians for their support of abortion, or same-sex marriage, his remarks would have held more weight, but as they were, they seem petty.
From writing that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (EG253), to pronouncing on economics (to which he admits he has no expertise) and scientific questions (climate), he veers too many times outside his wheelhouse. He has so much good to say – and does say so many good things – but we end up spinning the nonsense.
What is missing from Francis is the same thing missing from the Novus Ordo: sacred silence.
Rousing consciences, proposing Christianity, condemning wrong, encouraging good are all central to the Pope’s business.
I think we assume that because we freak out over sensationalized headlines, it means the Pope is having a problem. I’m not convinced that he isn’t achieving what he wants to through these interviews. He’s offering himself to the world in a sincere and familial way, and the world (generally) is responding with great love and appreciation.
To: His Holiness, Pope Francis
From: Peter Robinson
Re: Vatican Walls
Mr. Pope, if you seek peace, tear down this…
Naw. Too easy.
If I take it to mean what I think he meant, namely that (if he said things like that) he is expressing an attitude that is patently unchristian; he is not speaking as a Christian speaks, then yes, I think it’s true.
This is St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican. Bernini’s massive colonnade is designed to give the impression of welcoming arms. And, if you ever go there, you’ll experience that that’s exactly what it does. It welcomes throngs all day every day, friends and strangers. No charge.
Lately the Pope has set up portable showers for the homeless. Sometimes he goes out at night, dressed as a simple priest, to greet them and offers them food. He also declined to live in the sumptuous papal apartment deep inside. Instead he lives in a humble apartment in a guest house, where guests of the Vatican stay. My sister once bumped into him in the elevator there.
I met a homeless African in Rome who told me with tears of his meeting with the Pope. He had come to their shelter for lunch, and had greeted each one personally.
We can decry his imagined leftism and mishandling of the media all we want. If we do, we miss out on the beautiful words and witness he’s actually offering the world, which the world needs, and we need.
Scott, you scandalize me a little, as do many others of my fellow Catholics in the way they speak and write of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ. He is offering Jesus to a desperately suffering world, and we are judging and critiquing his every word as if he were a mere politician.
From almost the first moment he was elected and one of the Cardinal Electors greeting him said, “Don’t forget the poor,” and he chose the name Francis, the Pope has been repeating the same message. (His daily homily’s are especially beautiful, and steeped in the kind of holy wisdom that comes from a lifetime of prayer and meditation on the Scriptures.) “Open your hearts to the poor. Welcome the stranger. There you will find Christ.”
He didn’t call out Trump. The reporter presented Trump as an example of the opposite message: Get rid of people. Throw them out. Build a wall. So, it was a new opportunity to urge what he has been urging all along.
He’s also been a consistent and eloquent defender of life and marriage.
Also, Jesus frequently confused the faithful of his day.
So be it. I’ve put forth criticism in good faith and with the backing of sound Catholic principles.
The Holy Father was asked a question about Trump, and when he responds with “this man”, it is perfectly legitimate to infer that he is speaking of Trump.
I agree with all the kind and good things you write about Pope Francis. But when he veers off the road and heads toward the ditch, as one of the lay faithful, I feel I have a right to comment and criticize.
Trump is a Protestant. Like all Protestants he should have stopped caring what the Blank of Babylon had to say when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to that door.
Love this Pope. Every time he’s in the news, I always make a point to go and read exactly what he said in context, as it’s usually far more sensible than whatever the headline proclaims. Wonder if there’s ever been another world leader who spoke over the heads of the press, directly to the people…
“Speaking of Trump” in response to a direct question isn’t “calling Trump out.” The former is perfectly appropriate in a pontiff.
I wrote a post elsewhere some months back about what I think Catholics owe the Pope, including a list of occasions when I think criticism of the Pope perfectly valid.
1) When we feel a definite interior call from God to speak, as Catherine of Sienna did vis a vis Pope Gregory XI…
2) If the Pope were to betray his office by living immorally, say, or being corrupt and selling positions in the Church for money or influence.
3) If the Pope were to overreach—maybe commanding obedience outside the area of faith and morals—for instance, calling on Catholic Americans to vote for a particular politician.
4) If the Pope is obviously wrong on a point of fact outside the area of faith and morals and in the area of our competence. If, say, (making something up here) the Pope were to call for an end to the use of this or that chemical because it causes cancer, there would be nothing wrong with a scientist pointing out that the study on which he based his opinion has been discredited…
5) If we think the Pope’s sources are questionable, there is nothing wrong with saying so and showing why.
6) If the Pope were (practically impossible to imagine, given the promise we have) to teach heresy
The scorn being heaped today is not okay, imo.
That only applies to areas that the world wide Left has deemed to be acceptable. Everything else is within the purview of the Pope to determine one’s relationship with God.
Just as everyone who is about border security first does. This is what is so infuriating with what the Pope’s statement seems to signify, that the desire to have an orderly approach to immigration policy automatically equates to wanting to shut people out with zero recourse for becoming a US citizen if they so desire. No one is making that argument that is running for president, not even Trump. Why can’t this be acknowledged?