Printable View
Seems like I've noticed that, too, although angry is the word I've used.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
I could understand the pope commenting on whether some one is Catholic or not, but not to pass judgement on the broad realm of Christianity among American politics seems a little out of his realm.
The Pope has been rather cranky lately....scolding his adoring fans for pulling a little too aggressively on His Spotlessness. Speaking on behalf of Christ that's a stressful job. Im actually starting to feel a little sorry for Trump now, even God is against him. I wonder if God is a socialist or a Republican?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Trump is starting to win me over. I had a friend like him as a kid. We tolerated him because he didn't mind playing the outfield all the time and batting last in the lineup. And occasionally, he would say something you would like to say but had too good of manners to say yourself and that could be useful.
He never got in trouble because everybody just expected stupidity out of him. He died in a car wreck in high school and nobody was surprised. I was actually a little sad about the whole thing and went to visit the big maple tree he wrapped his car around. The tree just had a few scuff marks on it. The car was destroyed. It was one of the first experiences I had where you stood there and said to yourself, "wow, somebody died here." I didn't know that death had a smell until then.
I always have rooted for the person getting picked on. Just feel like the Pope would be better doing whatever it is that Popes do on a daily basis instead of publicly outing someone he doesn't like and trying to make an example of them. Somehow I thought the Pope was supposed to be more Christlike than that.
Favorite Pope joke:
"Pope Francis was the runner-up to Pope Benedict in the last election. And this time he got elected. You know what that means? There's still hope for Mitt Romney." –Jay Leno
I wouldn't dream of speaking for the pope, but maybe Trump is not starting to win over the pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
Maybe the pope is trying to remind the faithful that might consider voting for Trump that there is another way to look at the issue of the wall, and of accepting our brothers and sisters as, well, our brothers and sisters, as we would like them to accept us.
I like Catherine's quote about the wall and the table very much!
Ah, so we're comparing the "country" of Vatican City, which has an area of 109 acres and a population of 450 (and isn't completely surrounded by walls), to the US, which has an area of 3.8 million square miles and a population of 330 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff
We should check on Monaco--they're probably not pulling their weight either.
Vatican aside, there have been a number of Christians who have practiced isolationism, from the Essenes down to the Mormons and more. Personally, I would consider the opinion of the Dalai Lama. Though the situation has distinct differences, some of the basic issues are the same.
“…the unabated influx of Chinese immigrants to Tibet, which has the effect of overwhelming Tibet’s distinct cultural and religious identity and reducing the Tibetans to an insignificant minority in their own country, amount to a policy of cultural genocide.”
haha!Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Politics and religion are NOT a good mix. But I respectfully disagree with ANM's POV that the Pope's agenda is more Catholics.. I really think he just wants more people to act Christlike. So oldhat is right on... the Pope didn't say "Donald Trump is a bad person because he isn't a Christian." He said "someone who believes in building walls is not exemplifying behavior consistent with Christian values of love and mercy."
I know the following is long and I know it belongs in Spirituality, and not in Public Policy, but as I've said before, I love Richard Rohr, and here's his meditation for today which kind of describes the social/political/theological murky intersection and where the Pope stands on it--and I like it because it's a simple living message:
Quote:
Most of us have grown up with a capitalist worldview, which makes a virtue and goal out of accumulation, consumption, and collecting. Normally we cannot see this as an unsustainable and unhappy trap because all of our rooms are decorated with this same color. It is the only obvious story line that our children see. "I produce therefore I am" and "I consume therefore I am" might be our answer to Descartes' "I think therefore I am." They are all terribly mistaken.
This foundational way of seeing has blinded us, so that we now tend to falsely assume more is better. The course we are on assures us of a predictable future of strained individualism, severe competition as the resources dwindle for a growing population, and surely perpetual war. Our culture ingrains in us the belief that there isn't enough to go around. This determines much if not most of our politics. In the USA there is never enough for health care, for education, for the arts, for basic infrastructure. The only budget that is never questioned is for war and armaments and military gadgets.
Anything you need more and more of is not working--as the people in addiction recovery love to say. That's exactly why we always need more of it. The fact that we need more and more, and better and better--of almost everything except love--tells us that we are in a finally unworkable situation. But there is an alternative worldview, one that has been deemed necessary and important by most spiritual masters. It isn't a win/lose worldview where only a few win and most lose. It's a win/win worldview, which alone makes community, justice, and peace possible.
E. F. Schumacher said years ago, "Small is beautiful," and many other wise people have come to know that less stuff invariably leaves room for more soul. In fact, possessions and soul seem to operate in inverse proportion to one another. Only through simplicity can we find deep contentment instead of perpetually striving and living unsatisfied. Simple living is the foundational social justice teaching of Jesus, Francis, Gandhi, and all hermits, mystics, prophets, and seers since time immemorial. [1]
Catherine,
I get what this Richard Rohr is saying. As long as everybody is following the same program making little pretty sandcastles on the beach is the definition of contentment. Until some idiot decides to start knocking over sandcastles. The world is really a pretty turbulent place where this philosophy works only on one human at a time.
That's what we have government for so we can practice piety all the while we are carpet bombing the hell out of some poor bastards that either deserve it or are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think war is wrong but I think we too often use it as the first option and then really screw things up. There is a balance point somewhere. Where that is apparently is up for discussion.
I don't consider a spiritually-committed life to be like building pretty little sandcastles on the beach--not at all. The first Christian died a very violent death and because of that the Christian symbol is the cross. But what you said about balance--what I would call tension--between faith and politics.. yes, it's very difficult with no easy answers. I'm sure you've lived your life with that tension, as a Christian and an agent of the law, so I respect your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
I think you (and oldhat) are right. It goes back to “hating the sin but loving the sinner”, but our media make no such fine distinctions in their search for little dramas to purvey. I can’t help but think that if we reduce all of life and thought to mere politics we lose a great deal. Is it hypocritical to profess an ethical standard that all but the most saintly of us will fall short of? Or is it important to aim high and hope for some wiggle room for your imperfection in the form of grace? If I can never quite love my neighbor as myself, should I not even try; or perhaps demand that government do it on my behalf?Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I also think it’s a mistake to condemn capitalism on moral grounds. It’s a resource allocation system, not an ethical system. Since it’s a more efficient system than feudalism or communism, it tends to produce more total wealth, which some seem to confuse with greed and selfishness. But any system can be exploited for selfish reasons. If morality is at base an individual challenge, isn’t it futile to demand that our political system force morality on us?
My take on what the Pope said was that Trump's attitude towards illegal immigrants was not Christian.
As for the Vatican not allowing immigrants--they don't allow any immigrants, whereas Trump wants to discriminate against a particular group of immigrants. There's a difference.