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
Wait we can’t quote the Bible for fear of violating the CoC? I believe you mean to quote “Whore of Babylon”? For what it is worth, that is not Rome, just saying.
For whosoever believes in me…
Addendum: And doesn’t believe in walls.
He’s a Liberation Theology guy. Which is basically Socialism, but with Jesus. He injects himself into the political intentionally, and wishes to reshape it. The problem is that he always seems to be down here in the worldly concerns.
I think he scandalizes the Church with this bankrupt theology. Just look at Catholicism in Central and South America, it hardly resembles what we have here, or in Europe. Even where I live (southwest) I have to make sure I don’t attend Our Lady of the Proletariat Revolution for Mass.
There are some serious problems with this Pope beyond his unique ability to say unclear things to reporters.
I think he may have been talking about not literal walls but the walls of speaking to and at others and not with them which is a Trump foundational attribute.
This reminds me of Mark Ch. 8 where Christ is speaking about the leaven in the bread and the disciples look at each other in bewilderment and agree the he is rebuking them for forgetting to bring bread.
Of course, Christ new this would be misunderstood, new it would be written down for all eternity and new it would serve as a valuable lesson to those who seek His truth.
This Pope just seems to be a very poor thinker on his feet, a poor speaker and is seemingly surrounded by a cabal of hangers on who delight in set-up questions to get soundbites that can be manipulated to suit their own world-view. Folks on the other side of the political spectrum seem to have similar derangement about going after the guy without looking into context.
He’s not a liberation theology guy. He was known in Argentina as a staunch opponent of liberation theology, and was resented and marginalized by the Jesuits because of it.
It was Pope John Paul II, that great anti-communist, who recognized his true Christianity and true priesthood and plucked him from obscurity to make him bishop.
I am a student (not a very diligent one) of JP II’s thought, and post-conciliar Catholic thought generally. Everything I’ve read and seen of this Pope convinces me further of his essential continuity with his two great predecessors.
This Pope is much greater, more substantial a thinker and holier a person than conservatives give him credit for being, because our acquaintance with him is too limited to what we read in headlines and by his detractors.
From an article titled “When Bergoglio Defeated the Liberation Theologians”:
I read his opposition to it as being a staunch opponent of armed insurrections justified by liberation theology. Even some priests joined guerrilla groups in his home country. I think he accepts the premises to a less extreme degree.
Ah, you accuse me of superficiality and gullibility.
And I think you give this all-too-human man too much leeway. And I understand why, believe me I do. But he seems to be in a little over his head. Having ‘your heart in the right place’ is a good thing, but, in the end, its the effect you have on people and situations that counts. What will be this man’s legacy to his flock and to the world?
One can learn to be more politic in their extemporaneous speech. I wish him luck.
deleted by user
Like the Pope, I have a little problem with speaking (posting?) without thinking it through fully. I have the advantage here, as I can delete my impolitic remarks.
And with that, I will do you all a favor and remove myself from the playing field for a while…..have a good day!
JimK,
I’ll take the Pope. You offering odds.
Regards,
Jim
Like the bookies, the Post always wins.
No, he explicitly repudiates a “marxist hermeneutic”, not only violent tactics. Marxism reduces history to impersonal forces, and it subordinates individuals to the collective. It also abolishes God. This is radically opposed to everything the Pope stands for.
He has studied carefully and upholds scrupulously the Social Teaching of the Church, which condemns socialism as incompatible with the dignity of the person.
Here’s another Bergoglio quote I used in another post yesterday:
Very well. But the Pope also owes his flock clarity. I think Phil Lawler lays out the case quite well here. There have been too many occasions of confusion with this man. I agree with Mr. Lawler:
Does he? I doubt (sincerely.) As I said, Jesus was often unclear with his followers. And among the Jesuits (even the good ones!), ambiguity is frequently employed as a pedagogical tool.
It’s effective because very often, especially when it comes to religious and moral matters, we are too sure of ourselves and our command of the subject matter. To unsettle us is to startle and so “force” deeper reflection and better self-awareness.
I am a fan of Philip Lawler, but I don’t agree with him on this point. I wouldn’t want the Pope to sacrifice his general openness and availability to the world for the sake of preventing possible confusion among the faithful.
And, to be honest, I don’t think the faithful are confused. They’re only upset that other people might be confused. They want a Pope who reflects their personal emphases on truth and law, rather than his on love and mercy. I think his emphases are just the ones the world wants right now.
(Of course I know those things aren’t separable in fact. It’s a matter of emphasis and perspective.)
JimK,
Weirdly, the Post sort of sticks to actual events in a garish but tasteless way. It takes the Times to manufacture events out of whole cloth.
Regards,
Jim
Interesting that Pope Francis refuses to ‘meddle’ in Italian politics (or Cuban, Bolivian, etc.) yet seems to have no problem commenting on American politics.
‘Pope refuses to meddle with Italy’s gay unions bill debate’
http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/pope-refuses-to-meddle-with-italys-gay-unions-bill-debate_439528.html
Heh
katie,
I think Jeanne has a point.
Regards,
Jim
Again, the Pope didn’t meddle. He responded to a direct question, mostly by demurring, after repeating a broad Christian principle. He’s done that regarding Italian politics too.
Now that is a knee-slapper, invoking the Jesuit card. That is just too much.
Well, that strikes me akin to the alleged Pauline Kael quote:
I’ve had my wife, friends, and cousin all asking me what the Pope meant – people are confused and many are scandalized.
I must admit that nowadays I cringe just about any time this Pope is mentioned in the media. I’ll continue to pray for him, and I’ll leave it at that.
Agree.
katie,
So the problem is the left wing gotcha media reporting misquoting the Pope massively. Should then the Pope demand retractions from the reporters? Should he let it be known that certain reporters shall never be granted an interview again and/or will be thrown off the press plane?
Regards,
Jim
I don’t mean that faithful aren’t confused by what the Pope said. Of course they are. I mean they’re not confused about what the Church teaches. And if they are, they know where to find the catechism.
I don’t think temporary confusion about particular comments of the Pope is a problem, especially if it draws out further reflection, discussion, and clarification. Take, for instance, Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address, or his comments about the gay prostitute using a condom. They perplexed and upset a lot of people. And they led to good reflection and discussion.
The problem, as I see it, is mostly conservatives freaking out over things the Pope says in response to media questions.
I don’t think the Pope is too terribly concerned about misunderstandings and misconstruings. They will be sorted out in due course. His main concern is reaching as many people as he can with the gospel. And for him, part of that means making himself available to the press.
This is where I am.
This Pope is a stumbling block, for me, and many of the other Catholics I know.
He’s the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth and all. But to me it feels like he’s more the Pope of Central and South America, rather than the Universal Church.
katie,
Well, Jeb! didn’t think he needed to hit The Donald back in a debate and that didn’t work out so well. Don’t you think that the Pope might adjust his attitude to the Press? Is the problem just conservatives? Isn’t he is giving all Catholics motion sickness?
Regards,
Jim
Jim, the Pope isn’t a politician. (I know you know that.) His continuance in office depends on the grace of God and his own perseverance, not the approval of a Catholic majority.
That said, among the American Catholics I know, he is mostly loved and admired. A not insignificant number get nervous about him sometimes, but they’re open, and generally trust the Church, and look to him as their shepherd. And a smaller subset—they are mostly staunch traditionalist type Catholics—positively dislike and mistrust him.
More importantly, I think, the poor and oppressed of the world love him.
And many non-Catholic or formerly Catholic Americans, too, find themselves open to the Church for the first time in a long time because of him.
I think all of us will love him more when his whole story is told and the full truth of his life and works revealed to the world.
I don’t think he’s perfect by any means, but I do strongly suspect he’s a saint, and I do think he’s leading the Church in the way the Church needs at this moment in her history.
He’s had a big effect on me personally, deepening my understanding of my faith and challenging me to make it much more real and practical in my life than I have up to now—not just living by the teachings, but by paying much more attention to “the least of these.”
If that is what he meant, do you agree that there is a significant gap between the intended meaning and the statement uttered?
If the statement is unchristian, rather than the person, then “this man is not Christian” is not right. Similarly, if the statement is unchristian, then it doesn’t matter who says it, right? If Trump didn’t say it, it would still be an unchristian thing to say.
Along with the ridiculous, albeit true, statement that the Gospels don’t talk about wall or bridge building in a serious way (they do talk about the destruction of walls as a bad thing for those behind them), it really seems to me as if he was suggesting that if Trump said those things, Trump is not Christian.
If you prefer to believe that the Holy Father be understood to have spoken Catholic doctrine than what he said, then I can understand that, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to demand that other people join you in this hermeneutic.