I've been amazed at people mad that the pope is closer to Jesus' image than any other public figure we know. He blew off lunch with Boehner and Pelosi to feed the poor so obviously no one has taught him how to be a true raging left wing liberal. I even saw someone saying that the pope has no clue about how a capitalist society operates and that the pope is a true socialist.

 

Good observation dummy.

Not picking on anyone particular in this thread, just an observation......Interesting that folks love the pope "mixing" politics and religion when it suits their line of thinking.

The pope has interesting views on immigration. For anyone that doesn't know, look up the immigration policies of Vatican City.

Not picking on anyone particular in this thread, just an observation......Interesting that folks love the pope "mixing" politics and religion when it suits their line of thinking.

 

How is the pope mixing politics and religion exactly? He is saying, in a nutshell, take care of those who need it, and take care of the earth. Both of which are religious views with strong textual support. They were religious views before their opposite became political views in the greed-driven policies of the last twenty-five years.

 

And I am not saying this is you individually, but it appears to me that the "origin" and the "momentum" of this idea to criticize the pope for being political, is coming from those who are inconvenienced by him bringing these issues forth when they would prefer to ignore them; and most of that is probably the climate change position.

 

I really would like someone to tell me what is so wrong with what he said to congress. There are transcripts of his address out there. Show me three consecutive sentences of something he said that crossed the line. I really don't he said anything bad at all. And for all the talk of him being "political" I haven't seen a quote yet. Let's see some quotes.

The Pope knew exactly what he was saying and he understood the crowd before him. He picked his words carefully and was able to get his points across enough so that the individuals in the room each had something to think about. If he had gotten very specific on any of a number of issues, conservative or liberal, as some had hoped, he would have lost half of the room immediately. He wanted to keep everybody engaged throughout his entire speech so as to hear his entire teaching. This, I believe, he accomplished successfully.

How is the pope mixing politics and religion exactly? He is saying, in a nutshell, take care of those who need it, and take care of the earth. Both of which are religious views with strong textual support. They were religious views before their opposite became political views in the greed-driven policies of the last twenty-five years.

 

And I am not saying this is you individually, but it appears to me that the "origin" and the "momentum" of this idea to criticize the pope for being political, is coming from those who are inconvenienced by him bringing these issues forth when they would prefer to ignore them; and most of that is probably the climate change position.

 

I really would like someone to tell me what is so wrong with what he said to congress. There are transcripts of his address out there. Show me three consecutive sentences of something he said that crossed the line. I really don't he said anything bad at all. And for all the talk of him being "political" I haven't seen a quote yet. Let's see some quotes.

 

He also said the sanctity of life should be protected at every stage of development. I'm sure our Liberal friends disagree with that.

He also said the sanctity of life should be protected at every stage of development. I'm sure our Liberal friends disagree with that.

 

Over the course of his time in the Chair of St. Peter, he's given people of every political persuasion plenty to chew on.

The Pope knew exactly what he was saying and he understood the crowd before him. He picked his words carefully and was able to get his points across enough so that the individuals in the room each had something to think about. If he had gotten very specific on any of a number of issues, conservative or liberal, as some had hoped, he would have lost half of the room immediately. He wanted to keep everybody engaged throughout his entire speech so as to hear his entire teaching. This, I believe, he accomplished successfully.

 

Possibly - but I feel like when most people begin to dialogue (myself included) you eventually uncover underlying agendas.

 

When the pope speaks all I hear is consistent love, kindness, and respect. This speaks to all of us and is just so damn refreshing.

Over the course of his time in the Chair of St. Peter, he's given people of every political persuasion plenty to chew on.

 

No argument from me on that.

 

I just found it interesting no one had mentioned his words on that.

Was the supreme pontiff making an explicitly political appeal? Of course he was. These are political problems we're talking about.

 

Where the problem comes in is that his agenda isn't hidden or of ulterior motive; it's right there in plain sight.

 

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church as he understands it. Some may say that his vision is too far left. Perhaps.

 

Some men read Rerum Novarum or Quadragesimo anno and they see the strictures upon unfettered capitalism and it's amoral disregard for the poor. Others read the exact same document and see only its condemnations of socialism and it's unequivocal endorsement of private property rights as a principle of natural law.

 

These positions exist simultaneously in Church teaching though they are antithetical to one another in modern American politics. It makes the words of the pope especially difficult for the modern television or internet newsmedia to digest as it flies in the face of their divisive political narrative.

He also said the sanctity of life should be protected at every stage of development. I'm sure our Liberal friends disagree with that.

 

That doesn't mean he is mixing politics and religion. I mean, he is the pope. He does from time to time comment on matters of religion. He says that the sanctity of life should be protected at every stage of development. It's a stretch to say that is a political statement and not a statement of religious belief coming from the pope.

 

What interests me more is your assessment that our liberal friends would disagree with that. The statement could also be used to support broad initiatives against childhood poverty, making sure children have medical care, and ending capital punishment. For some of our conservative friends, the sanctity of human life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Not picking on anyone particular in this thread, just an observation......Interesting that folks love the pope "mixing" politics and religion when it suits their line of thinking.

The Pope isn't a politician.

It's important for people to remember (not that anyone has said anything contrary to this) that:

 

A) The Pope is infallible on matters of faith only. Political issues can be and often times do not directly concern matters of faith.

B) When the Pope does comment on political issues or scientific news or whatever it may be, that does not make it the Church's official stance.

 

(Ed's note: I know those might be the same point :idunno: )

 

Technically not correct. The pope is only infallible of matters of faith and moral when he speaks ex cathedra which translates literally "from the chair" or a better translation, "from the chair of Peter" and technically has only happened twice since the concept of papal infallibility came about in the 1870's in Vatican Council I and on those two issues, the leadership of the church was leaning so heavily on these two issues that the popes of those issues really didn't cause anyone to lose sleep over those issues 99.99999% of Catholic Dogma on faith and morals were joint decisions by all the bishops together (the pope is a bishop also).

 

A little lesson on the Catholic Church for the non Catholics of BGP

"From the Chair of Peter" or referencing Peter's Authority after Jesus's Ascencion is basically referencing when Jesus gave the keys to Peter and said, what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loose in heaven. The act of giving the keys is a direct reference to the Book of Isiah (I think Isiah) where King Solomon hands the keys to his kingdom to his Prime Minister giving all the ministers the authority to run the kingdom while he was gone but Solomon specifically gives top authority to his Prime Minister and uses the keys as a symbol of this. All of the Jews present when Jesus gave the keys to Peter would have recognized what Jesus was doing which is why in the early church, while the apostles fully recognized that Peter could error and would point it out, they also fully accepted his position such as in Acts when the apostles were arguing over an issue (was it whether Gentiles converting to Christianity had to be circumcised?) once Peter spoke, all arguments ended.

 

The Catholic Church (and to a large degree the Greek Orthodox Church) views Jesus selecting Peter as his Prime Minister and his apostles as the other Ministers by calling them together in the same fashion by handing keys to Peter. And just as with Solomon's kingdom, when a minister died or otherwise was unable to carry out his duties, the other ministers were able to elect another to replace him while the king was away. The Catholic Church and Greek Orthodox Church both view the successors of the apostles as today's bishops which are selected by themselves while Jesus is away until he comes again. Also, while Solomon was away, if the Prime Minister died or was unable to carry out his duties, the other Ministers could select one (generally amongst themselves) to take the role as Prime Minister and this Prime Minister and any others who follow him have the same authority as the original Prime Minister Solomon gave the keys to until King Solomon's return. (Apparently Solomon was gone for quite a while). The Catholic church views the pope as this Prime Minister. Jesus assigned the role to Peter. Jesus ascended into heaven but introduced the Holy Spirit help Peter and the apostles and their successors (AKA when they screw up over the centuries, guide them to fix their mistakes).

 

So the above gives a very brief explanation of why the Catholic Church believes the pope does have the ability to define faith and morals but only two have used this authority, the rest relied upon church councils where all of the successors of the apostles of the Catholic church make the decision.

 

So how does this affect Pope Francis? While he is the leader and the keeper of the keys of the church, so far he has not once used infallibility nor will he most likely. What he may do is offer further insight on current church teachings as the last meeting of Bishops did a few months ago. The meeting was many voices but obviously his was the most prominent.

The pope has interesting views on immigration. For anyone that doesn't know, look up the immigration policies of Vatican City.

Would that be the part about putting up a giant wall and charging people to get in?

The pope has interesting views on immigration. For anyone that doesn't know, look up the immigration policies of Vatican City.

 

Lets's talk about the Vatican City and it's 109 acre size.

 

For starters, we're talking about a tiny country. For starters, let's compare it to some cities around Kentucky:

 

Covington is 80 times larger than the Vatican.

Pikeville is 90 times larger than the Vatican.

Paducah is 117 times larger than the Vatican.

Bowling Green is 209 time larger than the Vatican.

Lexington is 1673 times larger than the Vatican.

Louisville is 2342 times larger than the Vatican.

 

Next, in regard to the walls around the Vatican, they date back to the 9th century when conflicts were fairly regular between the city-states that occupied modern day Italy. Say what you want about them being there now, but those walls were built as literal protection against outside military forces.

 

The Vatican has rarely seen more than 1000 residents living within its walls. Stuffed with as many religious, cultural, and historical sites as the Vatican is, as well as the numerous museums, and the offices required to oversee the Catholic Church at large, Pope Francis has still announced that they will be housing two families of Syrian refugees at the Vatican.

 

As for the people allowed to become residents of the Vatican, people may say the immigration policies are strict in the Vatican because they essentially only allow Catholics, and of those Catholics allowed, they are primarily only men, but considering pretty much every single residence within the Vatican is attached to one of the various Catholic holy sites in the city, and the fact that the residences were built specifically to house the people seeing over the actual Catholic Church, I don't see how you can make much of an argument on the Vatican being overly restrictive on its immigration policy. It's not like they have a new subdivision of McMansions and townehouses and they're refusing people to buy into the HOA here...