The Pope, Donald Trump and Immigration

Pope Francis today made comments seen by many to have direct relevance to the U.S. presidential campaign.:

“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.

The Pope subsequently modified his remarks:

Asked whether he would try to influence Catholics in how they vote in the presidential election, Francis said he “was not going to get involved in that” but then repeated his criticism of Mr. Trump, with a caveat.

“I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that,” Francis said. “We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

Of course it would be highly unethical for a person, let alone a religious leader, to comment on another person’s Christianity without giving the other person an opportunity to explain and/or defend himself for remarks he has made or what others have accused him of saying. Though the Pope should be credited for giving Trump the benefit of doubt, his statement is nonetheless inadequate. As a religious leader, he should have said, “I need to hear all of his remarks in context, and I would need to speak to him personally for clarification before issuing an opinion on the substance of said remarks.”

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to offer an opinion on immigration from what the Pope considers a Christian perspective, and it is acceptable to say that Person X’s comments do not correspond with Christianity, but to publicly hint that such a person is not even a Christian is excessive. I can even see somebody saying that said person did an unchristian thing, but to allege that he is not a Christian seems way too harsh, especially from somebody who preaches tolerance and compassion.

Francis made his remarks about Mr. Trump barely three hours after he had concluded his Mexico trip by presiding over a huge Mass in the border city of Ciudad Juárez. He first walked to the edge of the Rio Grande — as American security officers watched from the other side — to lay flowers at a new memorial commemorating those who have died trying to cross the border.

Francis then celebrated Mass, as a crowd of more than 200,000 people stood barely a stone’s throw from the border and listened to the pope call for compassion for immigrants fleeing chaos, poverty and war.

Okay…but did the Pope remark on the unjust situation in Mexico that is causing people to flee their own country? Did the Pope criticize Mexico’s very strict immigration policy? Did he issue a call urging the Mexican government to do something about poverty and corruption? I hasten to add that he may have said such things, and if so, I’d love to read about it. If not, then his consistent overt or covert criticisms of the United States ring hollow. If people were fleeing the United States, would the Pope have choice words for our policies which cause people to flee? The Pope does little to advance his interpretation of the Gospel when he can apparently ignore the injustices all around him.

Surprisingly, some of Trump’s opponents have issued statements in response to the Pope’s remarks:

UPDATE: Jeb defended Trump and a border wall. “I think the Pope said Trump is un-Christian. That’s between him and his Creator … it is not un-Christian to protect your border, to keep people out who come here illegally.”

UPDATE: Rubio pushed back against Pope: “Vatican City controls who comes in, when they come in, and how they come in, as a city-state. The United States has a right to do that, as well.”

Yes, and the Vatican has a high wall marking its boundaries too. You shouldn’t complain about walls if you have them yourself. If the Vatican has a problem with walls, perhaps its walls should come down before condemning others for either having them or wanting to build them. If the Pope doesn’t like our immigration policy, he should first change the Vatican’s very strict immigration policy to reflect what he recommends for the rest of the world. It’s called leading by example and taking the beam out of one’s own eye before presuming to remove the mote out of somebody else’s.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Obama will not attend Scalia funeral - Open Thread
  • retired military

    “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,”

    Although the Pope addressed abortion it did not get near the coverage as this. Still I anxiously await the day that the Pope states

    “A person who thinks only about abortion, wherever they may be, and not giving birth to babies, is not Christian,”

    • RM, this is what the Pope said, in that same press conference, about abortion:

      Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to kill someone in order to save another. This is what the Mafia does.


      I’m thinking acting like the Mafia is, in the Pope’s mind, less than Christian.

      • Retired military

        I referred to his statement in my post above. And I said that it didnt get the press that his other statement did.
        I asked above and ask again. Why doesnt the Pope tell Obama that he is not a Christian with his views about abortion? Why doesnt he talk about the border fences in other countries like NK , China , and Russia where people get shot for illegally crossing the border? WHy does he insist on saying capitalism bad but hey that capitalist coutnry should allow in millions unchecked?
        The Vatican has a wall surrounding it and it has the strictest immigration laws in the world.
        Tell me Rick. What do you think would happen if 1000 refugees showed up in St Peter’s square and set up their tents and said “We are here, this is is our new home”? Would they be greated with open arms or with the Vatican guard and forcibly removed from the Vatican property?
        Answer me this Rick. Lets say you had a couple of 10 year old kids going to Catholic school here in the US. One day a bunch of immigratns showed up at your kids school and started campoing out on the grounds there. Comes to find out that several of the immigrants were convicted child molestors and rapists? Would you fight for their right to make your child’s schoolyard their new home? or would you be demanding that the church do something to make them leave. Because just that situation is happening all over the US. Only instead of Catholic schoolyards it is our neighborhoods. There is no screening process.
        So please Rick

        Answer each of those questions after you climb down off your high horse.

        • jim_m

          Careful RM. Soon Rick will be cautioning you about how your soul is in danger.

        • I think your premises are flawed. I think your questions are illogical and some of them falsely constructed. I think your horse, in my less than humble view, seems to be taller than my horse.

          • jim_m

            I’ll just say that the above is non responsive. It is reasonable to ask why the Vatican doesn’t take in muslim refugees.It is reasonable to ask a Priest to live out his faith rather than just berate his followers for not doing so themselves.

      • Ken in Camarillo

        You must have misquoted the Pope. Abortion is wrong because it kills someone (who is innocent). PERIOD. Not because someone else is being saved by it. If fact, it is legitimate to kill someone who is about to kill an innocent, if doing so could save that innocent. If you quoted the Pope correctly, the Pope is more scrambled than any of us has previously thought.

  • Jwb10001

    Leave it to the Pope to get Bush and Rubio too defend Trump. What a whacky political season this is.

  • Let them battle to the rhetorical death:

  • Commander_Chico

    That’s probably a net +5 for Trump in SC.

    The Pope does not see what a danger a nuclear armed US with a huge underclass and no middle class could be 50 years down the road.

    • Chico, the Pope’s focus is on the poor, something completely in line with Catholic Social Doctrine. Have you read the Compendium?

      • jim_m

        Gee Rick, maybe you could summarize in your own words what the document says.

        Wait, what am I saying, if you could actually think for yourself, you and I wouldn’t be having these arguments.

        • What I have to say about Catholic teaching is far from relevant. Who am I? What I have to say amounts to nothing. What the Church has to say however is life-giving. Read the Compendium for yourself and see.

          • jim_m

            Most of the people here are thinking individuals with relevant insights on life, politics, religion, the news of the day… Most. Just not you. You contribute nothing but the words of others. You offer no insights that we cannot find elsewhere. You are a cipher.

          • More of a null set.

          • Retired military

            And he doesnt answer questions whose answers are inconvenient.

          • jim_m

            Rick is hurriedly searching for a quotation from a Catholic priest to
            post in answer to you. And when you disagree with that comment his
            response will be that you do not disagree with him but with the person
            he quoted or with the Catholic Church and he will then refuse to discuss the issue further.

          • retired military

            He must not have found one yet

      • Retired military

        Considering my church just spent 100k to resurface the parking lot I tend to disagree that the focus is solely on the poor.

      • Commander_Chico

        Rick, yes, I agree, his focus is on the poor. But his solution is wrong. The solution is not to allow a flood of migrants to depress wages in the USA, making them relatively richer, but all American residents relatively poorer.

        The solution is for those countries to change their systems of governance, particularly crack down on government corruption and oligarchic systems and allow the poor to become richer. To the extent that pointless relation of their economies makes corruption possible, cut the regulations.

        You cited the Philippines in an earlier post. It is a good example. Grand and petty corruption is rampant. It manifests itself in poor infrastructure (kickbacks and bloated contracts) and crony capitalism (a recent example where an Australian telcom was not permitted to build a sorely-needed fast internet service because the ruling families control the only 2 telcom providers). Prices are inflated because of cartels and vertical intergration which would violate US antitrust laws. The poor are the main victims of an incredibly greedy ruling class.

  • Alpha_Male

    Excellent Post!

    Most of the time when the Pope says something controversial it becomes a Catholic bash fest. I think you did an excellent job of pointing out and differentiating the Popes position on the immigration issue, which is political, and the Church’s stance on religious issues.

    I for one, as a devout Catholic, totally disagree with the Holy Father on issues of immigration and the poor. I think his background in Peronista politics colors his statements and he blames the cure and not the source of the problems way to often.

    I want to remind people that will go out and say, “see those ole fish eaters want to destroy America” that the Pope only speaks for Catholics in matters of the spirit not political issues and that before he makes proclamations on those issues they are discussed, quite extensively, among the clergy and lay people.

    Again Scalia excellent post you do a good job of reasonable argument, even on the rare occasion I disagree I enjoy reading your stuff. You keep us lurkers interested.

    • Mr. Male, as a devout Catholic, I’m curious… have you read the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church?

      I think it would be wise, if in fact you have, to read it again perhaps because it provides a great deal of context to the Pope’s words on “immigration and the poor” which in fact isn’t merely then political.

      • jim_m

        You err when you presume that this is not a political stance. Sure, it is informed be religious conviction, but to claim that it is purely religious is an insult to Catholics globally and an insult to anyone with half a brain. Hence it fails to be an insult to yourself.

        • Read the Compendium. Educate yourself. And try to carry conversations with people without resorting to insults.

          • jim_m

            With people I do. With religious zealots I do not.

          • Right… because others on Wizbang threads that you insult are all “religious zealots”.

            You should seriously consider repenting.

          • jim_m

            You should consider a sense of humor.

          • I think your soul being in danger is anything but funny.

          • jim_m

            I think your constant condemnations of me are humorous as examples of your hypocritical piety. GFY

          • Retired military

            THe timber in your eye vs the mote in his.

          • Retired military

            Instead of relocating millions to the US wouldnt it be easier for the countries where those millions come from change to better take care of their own people? Why isnt the Pope saying something about that>? if the US is so bad why is the Pope preaching against capitalism yet says that immigrants should be allowed to come here?

          • Commander_Chico

            RM, see my point above.

          • Scalia

            Rick, I do not see how urging political leaders to do something of interest to a particular religion isn’t political. If the “do something” involves any type of legislation, then the act is political by definition. I freely acknowledge that I might be misunderstanding something, so please enlighten me.

            Please pardon the crude illustration, but when Clinton insisted that Monica’s service jobs were not “sexual relations,” he turned language on its head. What he did was sexual by definition. Similarly, urging politicians to act in political ways is engaging in politics by definition. I wouldn’t think that would be a point of contention.

      • Alpha_Male

        Mr. Rice,

        I have read it and agree with the Church’s stance on social doctrine, where my disagreement comes in is in the Holy Father’s interpretation.
        I truly feel Pope Francis is a righteous man with a big heart and he is Christ’s vicar on Earth BUT I also have to acknowledge the fact that he grew up under the Peron junta and was raised on a steady diet of socialism and left leaning revolutionary thought, the thought that says the West is evil in their greed and they should be responsible for all the “evil” they have perpetrated on the world.

        I’m firmly in the “teach a man to fish” camp. I think the Holy Father would be better served to tell Mexico, for example, to clean up their mess, treat their people with dignity, end the ingrained culture of corruption and work to make their country a shining example; not that it is the U.S.’s responsibility to take in their population, solve their ills, and fix the worlds problems, the simple fact is we can’t.

        I just want people to understand that the Pope is our spiritual leader, not our political and that we always don’t walk lock step, that he is a man and thus is not infallible. If our leadership was without reproach we wouldn’t have German Bishops selling indulgences thus leading to the schism with Luther, or the schism between us and the Eastern church, the list can go on for pages.

        I struggled with this and spoke to my priest and he told me to remember that Jesus is the Church, the Church is perfect but men run it and by our very natures we are sinful creatures prone to make mistakes, nothing wrong with disagreeing.

        I could be wrong and probably am but when I read your posts sometimes I get the feeling your one of those apologists who walk a fine line into the camp of the Church and the Clergy being the same thing, thus they are infallible. I would caution against such thoughts, remembering the Church is perfect…men not so much.

        • Commander_Chico

          Agree totally, see my comment above. There are many countries where the standard of living could be equal to the USA or Europe but for regulation rigging the system and causing corruption, or certain lack of regulations (pollution and workplace conditions and wages).

          As for Mexico, Carlos Slim became the richest man in the world through a sale of a state asset rigged by his cronies in government. That was wealth stolen from the Mexican people.

  • jim_m

    “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,”

    Pope Francis condemns Catholic Church. Criticizes walls around Vatican city since 852, demands that centuries old edifice be torn down. Apologizes to mankind for Roman Catholics failing to follow Christ for over 1164 years.

    • About that wall around the Vatican

      And here’s the wall separating the Vatican from Italy… she’s perched pretty high up, hope she doesn’t fall…

      • jim_m

        Humorless Catholic fails to detect sarcasm.

        Film at 11:00.

        • You meant no humor in this Jim. None.

          • Physician, heal thyself.

          • jim_m

            LOL! What a F’ing self-righteous dumbass you are!

  • Scalia,

    Respectfully, rather than rely on what the New York Times is saying the Pope said and rely on the Times implying that the Pope later corrected or clarified what he said, I think it would be better to go to the full text of what was said:

    Phil Pullella, Reuters: Today, you spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said that you are a political man and he even said that you are a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if he’s elected, he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etcetera. I would like to ask you, what do you think of these accusations against you and if a North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?

    Pope Francis: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus.’ At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.

    The Pope did not question whether Donald Trump is or isn’t a Christian. He questioned whether a person’s action of building walls alone and not building bridges was Christian. He then reiterated what he said while extending the benefit of the doubt. What exactly is the problem?

    Also, the Pope’s words and his actions on immigration and the poor must be understood with the context of Catholic Social Doctrine. Perhaps you’ve read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church… perhaps not… if you haven’t, I highly recommend reading it as I think it explains the Pope’s emphasis, his focus, his standing with the poor and his statements that seem so foreign without that context.

    As to the wall… there is a wall around a portion of Vatican City, a wall that was constructed I believe in the 9th century and completed sometime in the 16th century. But I don’t see how that in any way relates to the Pope’s words on building walls without building bridges. And as an aside, I’ve been to the Vatican and the fact is that you cross the border separating Italy and the Vatican by merely stepping across it. It’s an open border. You simply walk across it. I know. I did it.

    One last thing… this Pope is being decimated by the Trumpeteers and his greatest sin is that he spoke plainly, he spoke without regard to political correctness, he stated what was on his mind without any filters. Which when Trump does it, is such a good thing. Oh the irony.

    • Scalia

      Rick, thanks for the full text, but in my view, that doesn’t change anything. The Pope was asked about Donald Trump, and in his answer from the very first sentence the “he” refers to Trump. Each stage of his answer is in relation to the reporter’s question about The Donald. Textually speaking, there is no question that Francis was speaking about Trump, and there is no question he questioned his Christianity with the qualification that Trump may not have put it in the terms that the reporter did (hence giving him the benefit of doubt). Simple sentence analysis will show that each step of the Pope’s answer is directly connected to each step of the reporter’s question.

      However, let’s lay that aside. I’ll concede arguendo that the Pope was merely speaking in general terms. If so, this goes back to our previous discussion where I expressed my disapproval of the Pope’s disconnect with his audience. Practically everybody, left and right, understood the Pope to at least hint that Trump is not a Christian. These are not malevolent demons trying to twist his words. If the Pope is going to answer an American reporter’s question about a political candidate, the Pope had better make certain that he knows how to put an answer together, or he should be wise enough to decline to answer. He is a public speaker. He is ethically obligated to make certain that the majority of his audience understands what he is saying. If he cannot make himself clear, that’s nobody’s fault but his.

      With respect to the Compendium, my reading of it in no measure leads me to question the Pope’s concern for the poor. My concern has been what I consider the Pope’s selective outrage with respect to whom he criticizes and what I consider glaring inconsistencies between the messenger and the message. If Francis wants to criticize U.S. immigration policy, why doesn’t he criticize Mexico’s? If he wants to attack some of our economic policies, why doesn’t he attack Mexico’s? If we’re so bad, why are people fleeing to us instead of away from us? Why are they fleeing Mexico? They’re fleeing because of corruption and incompetence, but the Mexican sermons seem few and far between from the pulpit of Francis. As I’ve stated before (and you agreed), what about the plight of hundreds of millions under the heel of communism? You agreed that he is morally obligated to speak out about it, but when has he attacked communism with the same intensity as he as some elements of capitalism? With due respect, Rick, I think these are legitimate concerns, and the longer the Pope appears to be selective with his targets, an audience who wishes him no ill and who are natural political allies in many respects (U.S. conservatives) will rightly question it.

      Finally, when the wall was built was immaterial. Gorbachev didn’t build the Berlin Wall, but he took it down. Yes, you can walk across the boundary where the wall isn’t standing, but try to bring 10 families across the line and set up camp with the intention of living there (and while you’re at it, demand free health care and an education). You can rest assured you’ll be shown the other side of the line. That’s the point I’m making in my post. I think there’s a double standard with respect to the Vatican’s immigration policy. They’re not leading by example, and that’s where the sermon flops.

      • Commander_Chico

        I generally agree with your point, but the Pope has called out corruption in the Philippines and Mexico and communism in Cuba:

        The Pope is by definition a universalist/globalist, though. By opposing enforcable national borders, he advances the agenda of the globalists who promote a global labor market with Bangladeshi wages for the 90% at the bottom and Croesus-like wealth for those at the top.

        • Scalia

          Thanks for the first two links. I applaud him for addressing Filipino & Mexican corruption. The third link is something I’ve seen. I don’t think telling Cubans to serve people not ideas washes as the kind of criticism of communism that the Pope has offered against capitalism. When the Pope does that with the same intensity, I’ll withdraw my objection.

          • Commander_Chico

            The Pope is playing a longer game in Cuba. It would be counterproductive to go there and make a harsh rant against the regime. John Paul II also did not do that when he went to communist Poland – he was more subtle.

            As for not hearing about his criticisms of other governments with “same frequency and intensity” that is fault of solipistic US MSM, not the Pope.

          • jim_m

            The JPII didn’t shun dissidents and didn’t refrain from speaking out against the communist government when he wasn’t in Poland. Francis’ criticisms of communism and Cuba are weak beer at best.

          • Scalia

            But he doesn’t want to play a longer game in the United States, and Cuba isn’t the only communist nation in the world. Sorry, Chico, but we’ll have agree to disagree on that one.

      • Scalia,

        I’m assuming you’re now aware that Mr. Trump seemingly is in agreement with my thoughts from yesterday. I think perhaps this is a kerfuffle less than worthy of the time we’ve spent on it.

        I’m also thinking you saw that in opposition to your claim that he spoke little of the corruption taking place in Mexico, that in fact, he did:

        During five days in Mexico, Pope Francis excoriated government elites for denying their people justice and peace, told bishops to do more to alleviate their flock’s suffering at the hands of drug traffickers and corrupt officials, and pointedly avoided the pomp of Mexico City in favor of more humble settings.

        While popes often offer gentle criticism on visits abroad, Francis seems to have gone even further in hectoring his hosts this trip. Observers said the pontiff clearly feels that both the Church and the government have failed Mexico’s people.

        “The pope literally believes that the devil is on the loose in Mexico, sowing death, misery, and resignation, and he believes that the state, the Church and the drug dealers are complicit,” said Andrew Chesnut, chairman of Catholic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. “He believes that Mexico, with the second-largest Catholic population in the world, is going through an acute moral and political crisis, and that the Church needs to become an active agent to build a more just Mexico.”

        He was pretty strident but of course, the media didn’t cover it.

        As to your voiced concern over the double standard of the Vatican’s immigration policy. In what way could we come up with a metric by which to measure whether a double standard actually exists? Population? Geographical square footage? Per capita income? Not real sure… in other words, is it symbolic or is it a real double standard? Asking genuinely. I know that the Vatican back in September allowed at least two refugee families to move in to the Vatican which doesn’t sound like much but when you consider that only about 450 people live inside the Vatican total, it’s a decent start… maybe.

        Peace man.

        • Scalia

          Well, I don’t subscribe to “Crux,” but I applaud the Pope for doing so. Perhaps you can find some Crux articles wherein the Pope excoriates communism? I would like to read that too.

          I stand by my comments as to the appropriateness of Francis’ comments about Trump, and I must say that the Vatican’s response is disingenuous. To me, the words speak for themselves. He should have chosen his words more carefully or he should not have responded at all.

          As to immigration, I want the Vatican to adopt an immigration policy that they feel exemplifies what all nations should follow. If they are going to expel immigrants due to the finitude of resources, then they have no basis for complaining about other nations doing likewise. We have a 19T debt, and we already take in 1MM legal immigrants annually. We have to get the situation under control. Neither the Pope nor anybody else has any business criticizing us for wanting to prohibit illegal immigration. If he wants us to have open borders, then he’s got to have them too. He’s got every right to criticize us, and we’ve got every right to criticize him in return (not that you disagree with that).

          • jim_m

            Scalia, I would quarrel with your last six words. I actually do believe that Rick’s position is that we are wrong to disagree with the Pope. This is based on Rick’s position that the Pope’s pronouncements are exclusively religious and doctrinal in nature and therefore unassailable. Such has been my experience.

          • Scalia

            Well, Rick just commented under DJ’s post that he (DJ) had every right to criticize the Pope, so that’s what I meant.

            Rick obviously stridently defends the Pope, and of course that’s his prerogative, but IMO, he does so with a fervor that appears excessive.

            For example, why can’t Rick simply state that the Pope overreached himself with respect to Trump? Under standard rules of inference, Francis was clearly directing his remarks at Trump. I would think that anybody who sincerely believes that Francis is not infallible would readily acknowledge the faux pas and let it rest.

            Rick provided additional information about the Pope’s sermons and I readily applaud Francis for making those remarks. I’m not trying to play gotcha, but he certainly spoke inadvisedly, and all relevant parties should at least acknowledge that.

          • Rest assured Scalia that should I come across Crux or any other respectfully sourced piece wherein the Pope criticizes communism, I’ll try to remember to bring them to your attention.

            And I continue to believe the Pope isn’t criticizing the US for wanting to prohibit illegal immigration, he is voicing strong support for treating illegals as human beings with dignity.

          • Scalia

            Thanks, Rick. I’m aware that the Pope has denied being a communist, so that’s not what I’m looking for. He has concentrated a lot of fire on our greed, and as I said before, that’s fine with me. I would just like to see him concentrate a lot of fire on communism too. That’s not for a political evening of the score; people are suffering under its weight. I would hope that responsible religious leaders of all stripes would speak out about it.

          • More a peronista in skirts…

          • Scalia

            Rick, did you ban Jim from our boards? I am hoping that this is some sort of misunderstanding.

          • I blacklisted him for a 30 minute period after he repeatedly posted to my own thread in violation of my personal ban.

            I then whitelisted him.

            It was a timeout of sorts. He was out of control.

            I’d consider doing it again if I had to. No one should have to put up with his repeated garbage.

        • Retired military

          ” In what way could we come up with a metric by which to measure whether a double standard actually exists? ”

          How about the Pope keeps his mouth shut about our immigration policies and we wont complain about his. Gee that only worked for like 230+ other Popes.

          • This reveals your ignorance. Look to see what Pope Benedict has said about immigrants. Look to see what Pope John Paul II has said.

            You’re blinded by your ideology RM.

    • jim_m

      Not to put too fine a point on it but the idea of church hierarchy is not in the gospel, or of priestly celibacy.

      Christ told the apostles to carry a sword with them at one point. I’ll bet Francis is not going to tell people that concealed carry is in the Christian tradition.

      This is my complaint about Francis, that he selectively quotes the bible to further his political beliefs and dresses up beliefs that are almost purely political with religious claims.

      • In your ignorance, you voice a problem with the Pope as if he authored Catholic doctrine. Sheez.

        • jim_m

          No. My complaint is that he hypocritically applies it in on instance and ignores it in another. Which, I presume, is exactly why you worship him so. He is just like you.

    • retired military

      My questions to you Rick still stand unanswered.

      As for your and the Vatican’s backtrack I call BS.

  • Wild_Willie

    If I was Trump I would have said “Defending, hiding and obstructing justice so pedophile priests can maintain their sexual abuse of minor boys is unchristian. The Catholic leadership has an anchor around their neck. This pope and others has a long way to go to proving they are a changed organization. “Why talk about the speck in your brothers eye when there is a beam in yours?” ww

  • Retired military

    Here you go Rick

    The Pope displays contempt for Trump yet

    Last, but not least, “El Papa” just visited Cuba. He hugged and embraced Raul Castro, a man who has executed priests, harassed religious leaders and closed Christian schools years ago. Did he call the Castro brothers UnChristian?

    Does he call Obama unchristian for his infanticide views?

    The US could turn away a million immigrants a year but Obama is fine with killing 1.3 miillion unborn a year and the Pope doesnt call him unChristian.

  • Commander_Chico

    All those bashing the Pope on this issue should realize the rest of the GOP field outside of Trump is open borders/pro H1B.

    It’s the US Chamber of Commerce position.

    High immigration = low wages = more profit for capital.

    • Like most of what you claim to know:

      …the rest of the GOP field outside of Trump is open borders/pro H1B.

      is just not so.

      • Commander_Chico

        Ha, ha!

  • Retired military

    I admire you adherance to the Catholic faith. At the same time you are like the liberal who loudly proclaimed “healthcare for all, healthcare for all” then when they saw their healthcare premium bill stated “I am glad to see there is healthcare for everyone but I didnt think I would have to pay for them to have it”