The Pope’s Speech in Congress Not Based on Christianity but Political Ideology
Without any regret whatsoever, I confess that I did not watch the Pope’s address to Congress. There is a good reason for it. During talking head newscasts and clips of Congressional workings replayed on the TV and internet, I end up talking, more like shouting, at the idiots on the TV displaying their twisted ideology, which upsets the “terrorist princess.” So, after the fact, I read the transcript of the Pope’s speech at the Washington Post. I fume in silence as I read in the quiet.
The current Pope, in the speech to Congress, sounds less like a Christian and head of the Catholic Church and more like a political shrill for abject ideology. Take, for instance, the Pope’s second statement. Speaking of Moses, Pope Francis said, “… the patriarch and lawgiver of the people of Israel symbolizes the need of peoples to keep alive their sense of unity by means of just legislation.” According to my Bible, God handed down the law to Moses making God the lawgiver, Moses the receiver of the law, and Moses the messenger to impart God’s law to the people. Wouldn’t it make sense that a Christian, a person of God, much less the Pope, would know this?
Pope Francis remarked that his visit took place during a time “when men and women of good will are marking the anniversaries of several great Americans.” He named specifically Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. This Pope called Abraham Lincoln the “guardian of liberty, who labored tirelessly that ‘this nation under God, [might] have a new birth of freedom.'” Clearly, the Pope sees ordering federal troops to move against this nation’s citizenry, unfair taxation of one section of the US, trampling of States’ rights, the forceful mandatory participation in a State cooperative and military occupation of one section of this nation as “guarding liberty.”
According to this Pope, “building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of subsidiarity and solidarity.” Building a future of freedom requires recognition of God-given unalienable rights and government performing its duty to protect those rights. “Love of the common good” sounds more like communism/socialism or marxism, but mixed with the “spirit of subsidiarity” (matters handled by the least centralized component) attempts to fuse a powerful centralized concept with decentralized authority. A powerful centralized authority cannot go exist with the bulk of authority held at the lower levels. As the citizens of this nation have witnessed, the political elite, working toward the “common good,” ends up limiting freedom of everyone by gathering power in a central authority.
He spoke of the world being “a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and religion.” The conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities being committed in the world today are done so in the name of “Allah” and Islam. Allah and God are NOT the same. Christians, particularly the Pope, should know this. He attempts to equate Christianity and Islam when they are polar opposites. Instead of speaking as head of the Catholic Church and a Christian, the Pope speaks as a politician pushing an agenda. The Pope should be concerned more with aspects of a spiritual nature than a political nature.
We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will the righteous and sinners.
In talking about “fundamentalism,” the Pope made sure to mention “other kinds,” not just religious fundamentalism. His comments fall in line with those who identify “conservatives, constitutionalists, Christians, gun owners, and upholders of individual rights” as fundamentalists who pose a threat to this government. The Pope suggest it is “temptation” to engage in “simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; … the righteous and sinners.” However, has not God already identified and judged what is evil and what is good? Did not Jesus come to call sinners to repentance as those who are not sick do not need a physician? (Luke 5: 31-32) Surely, Pope Francis is not contending that he knows more or better than God and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Continuing, the Pope said:
We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today’s many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.
Here is where the Pope speaks of “promoting the well-being of individuals and peoples” by maintaining commitments, which can speak to allowing unlimited numbers of individuals access into our nation. When speaking of moving forward as one in a “spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good,” this speaks toward one rule and communist style domination where “the common good” of the state overrules the protection of individual God-given rights. Promoting the well-being of individuals and peoples can also refer to redistributing wealth — a hallmark of socialism — under a one world government since the Pope spoke of moving forward “together, as one.” He spoke of the challenges demanding “we pool our resources and talents,” resolve to support one another while respecting differences to solve the difficult problems. It sounds as though he does not support “national sovereignty.” No two areas of the world are the same economically, socially, politically or religiously. What is the “common good” for the world, as one? There is no definitive explanation given.
In the very next breath, the Pope suggests listening to the voices of faith as the cooperation of the faithful is “a powerful resource” to eliminate new “global forms of slavery, born of great injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus.” Pope Francis cannot see that “great injustices” have come at the hands of despotic, tyrannical government as he calls upon government to institute new policies and forms of social consensus to correct injustice. That is calling on the wolf to herd the sheep. It is through government “policy” conforming to the “social consensus” of the more vocal, which can be the minority, which produces injustice. It is government stepping outside its function, upholding individual God-given rights, that creates injustice. It is more than irony the Pope would call on government to enlist the “faithful” to usher in government policy leading to injustice.
According to Pope Francis, “Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life.” Noah Webster would disagree with the Pope’s definition of “politics.” The Webster 1828 dictionary defines politics as “the science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.” Where is this “sacrifice of particular interests” to share goods, interests and social life in Webster’s definition?
He claimed himself a “son of this great continent.” Of course, the Pope is speaking figuratively as his lack of understanding the US and its founding is obvious. The United States of America is a nation, a country, a sovereign government, not a continent. But, it seems the Pope considers the US, Mexico, Canada and all nations north of Belize as one entity, like the European Union. Using the term “we,” the Pope states “we” should live nobly and justly as possible, educate a new generation not to shun their “neighbors,” constantly relate to others, reject a hostile mindset, and adopt reciprocal subsidiarity. He then encourages acceptance of illegal alien invaders as “immigrants” and “refugees,” reminding all of the Golden Rule found in Matthew 7:12 — “Therefore all things ‘whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”
If I break the law, I expect to be held accountable and punished according to the law after afforded due process. This is what I expect men to do to me. Therefore, should I not desire to hold lawbreakers accountable and see them punished according to the law after applying due process? Isn’t it compassionate and caring to point out evil and hold those accountable who commit evil?
The Pope also said, “Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. … The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.”
Isn’t it compassionate and caring to correct those who do wrong instead of ignoring it? Isn’t it a show of love to discipline our children to turn them from evil and wrong-doing? How caring and compassionate are we to our children if we do not discipline them and correct wrong-doing? We are not teaching our children as commanded by God if we fail in teaching right from wrong and exacting punishment should they stray. If we are a people who value the law, shouldn’t we hold others to the law? How caring and compassionate are we to each other by allowing the breaking of the law or application of the law inequitably among persons or particular crimes?
He spoke against abortion, the death penalty and against the right to bear arms. At least he got one out of three correct — abortion. He spoke of his encyclical on “climate change,” which was full of wealth redistribution, denial of individual rights and places more power in the hands of government. But, this man also speaks of increased power in lower forms of authority. This man spoke of the “spirit of America” and the culture; yet, implored this nation to surrender its sovereignty by capitulating to his demand, along with the UN, to allow “as many young people as possible” to inherit and “dwell in a land that has inspired so many people to dream.”
Whatever this Pope is, I, for one, question how he reconciles his political views and activities with Christianity. To me, the two are in conflict but our leaders refuse to see it. Instead, their eyes are blinded by the “rock star” glitter of the office of the Pope and possibly the Pope himself. If our nation’s leaders are looking to the Pope for any guidance based in Christianity on government, they are looking to the wrong head of the wrong church. But, they aren’t really looking for that; they are looking to a less than Christian Pope to affirm their unlawful behavior.