Obama “hugely impressed” with Pope Francis
I have been hugely impressed with the pope’s pronouncements…. [He is] somebody who lives out the teachings of Christ. Incredible humility – incredible sense of empathy to the least of these, to the poor….
He’s also somebody who is – I think first and foremost – thinking about how to embrace people as opposed to push them away; how to find what’s good in them as opposed to condemn them.
And that spirit, that sense of love and unity, seems to manifest itself in not just what he says, but also what he does. And, you know, for any religious leader, that’s something – that’s a quality I admire.
And – I would argue for any leader period – that’s a quality that I admire.
~ President Barack Obama, remarking on recent comments made by Pope Francis which have been portrayed as unfavorable toward pro-life work, via USA Today, October 2
[Image via CatholicVote.org]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“… how to find what’s good in them as opposed to condemn them.”
Once again a misguided politician bemoans the condemnation of sin as a condemnation of the sinner. Condeming alcoholism is not condemning alcoholics, condemning theft is not condemning thieves, and condemning abortion is not condemning women who have abortions.
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.” Yes indeed, but is not the unborn child a stranger not invited in because those already inside do not want to share their feast with another mouth? I just don’t understand how a believer can think it’s doing the Lord’s work by tearing the arms and legs off of another human being.
Sooner or later Pope Francis is going to meet with Barky and I hope he really is in his arrogant face about the latter’s radical abortion stance.
This from a man who attended Jeremiah Wright’s Church for TWO decades absorbing the “sermons” without a blink of an eye and only severing ties when this relationship became politically inconvenient during his 2008 run for the presidency. Such hypocrite..
The dissident Catholics and anti-Catholics have all gotten on the same page: “Whatever this new Pope says, we’re going to announce that he’s on our side now.”
Now even Barack has picked up on this trick.
Here is my “spin” on Francis: We Catholics have allowed the world to define Catholicism as “the religion that is opposed to contraception and abortion” — as if that were the only message we have for the world. (And remember: These are the same worldly folks who define pro-lifers as “those people who hate women, shoot abortion providers and bomb clinics.”)
Francis is telling Catholics to take back the message. First and foremost, Catholicism is the gospel of love and mercy through Jesus Christ.
I have already taken Francis’ message to heart. He is not telling me to abandon the sidewalk. But I no longer hold signs that emphasize murder. My signs say “Pray to end abortion.” I am thinking about signs that say, “Jesus is mercy. We can help you.”
If the first impression we make is our sign, then Francis wants it to be warm and inviting, not stern and judgmental. It seems to be practical, pastoral advice.
I bet that the Pope is not at all impressed with Barack Obama.
I am not Catholic. This is my disclaimer. However, those who took the Pope’s words and got “don’t care or speak out about abortion and homosexuality” from it remind me of the people who pull “judge not lest ye be judged” from the Bible.
Read the whole thing to comprehend, Barry.
I think people like Pope Francis might make those who are struggling feel less hopeless than a lot of other Christian public figures do. That’s why I like him at least, I like reading what he has to say.
I’m sure he’d be kind to Obama but firm about the immorality of certain decisions.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jack. I know there are many people out there who are benefiting from his words, but it’s hard to find them when one mostly hears the loud mouth media simply trying to use him to further their agenda.
It does appear that our Holy Father (Francis) is, perhaps in an over-presumption of goodwill (or, more likely, a culture-shock sort of maladaptation to an American/European Neo-Pagan press whose worldview is largely alien to his own, both in the moral sense and in the non-Hispanic/Argentinian sense), not as savvy about interviews with the press as he could be. It’s a sad commentary on the world, that the leader of the Catholic Church should need to be so “shrewd and wary” with people who ask him questions, but… there you are. God grant that he becomes accustomed to these sorts of things (or at least stops granting impromptu interviews until he does gain such acclimation!) soon!
:) Greetings, Bobby! Long time, no see!
I am Catholic. Now that the Pope has told us to embrace people and not push them away, I am inviting other Catholics (and other Christians, too), to join me on the sidewalk at the neighborhood abortion facility. The timing is excellent for we are into a 40 Days for Life prayer vigil and Sunday is LifeChain Sunday.
We pray for God’s mercy, offer Him our sorrow for our personal sins and the sins of our heartless community. We bear gentle, public witness against the atrocity occurring in our own community.
Thank you, Pope Francis for rejecting the viciousness in the public discourse. “For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places.” Eph 6:12
Heathen repent and be forgiven. Change your evil ways. It would be better you tear out your tongue then speak another word against Christ.
I don’t think Pope Francis needs to be more shrewd or savvy. I think his words speak for themselves when they are allowed to, and I think that many people see through the editorializing that follows.
This week I was working on a carpentry crew with 12 other people, all men, all single/unmarried, all mid-30s, none religious in any way. Three times over the week, conversations or debates broke out about what the pope had said! I have legitimately never seen such a thing in my career. Someone would make a comment, someone else would correct him, a third would ask for elaboration or argue, etc. Just dudes rigging chain, bolting stuff together, and idly chatting about the pope.
Did any of them convert? No. Repent? Heck no. Did they talk an astronomical level more about the pope, Catholicism, and what is actually said versus what is heard? YES. It was really sort of fascinating. And what really interested me was that it was one of the least rhetoric-filled Catholicism discussions I’ve ever heard from non-Catholics. There wasn’t even a single quip about pedophiles. It’s as if there was the sense that Catholicism is not what they thought – the conversations were much more genuine and open-ended, much less sound-bite heavy; almost as if they were ready to hear something new. And so they did. Because, I suppose, they already had.
Obama isn’t catholic. He is behoved to be diplomatic and polite in regards to the pope, nothing more.
“I am Catholic. Now that the Pope has told us to embrace people and not push them away …”
Please just follow Jesus first – He’s been telling us this for centuries in His Word.
Alexandra, excellent post! Thanks for sharing.
I don’t think the Pope needs to be more shrewd either. I pray he continues to just be himself. He has much to offer us.
“I have been hugely impressed with the pope’s pronouncements…” Barack Obama
“Every unborn child, though unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of the Lord, who even before his birth, and then as soon as he was born, experienced the rejection of the world” Pope Francis
”Did any of them convert? No. Repent? Heck no.”
Alexandra, did abortion ever come up as a part of any discussion between this 12 man carpentry crew?
Briefly, truthseeker. (12 man and 1 woman carpentry crew, don’t forget!) Not in an in-depth way but someone said something like, “Nothing has actually changed, the church is not like marrying gays or anything, people are going crazy over nothing,” and someone else said, “It’s not going to change, it’s never going to marry gays, he’s just saying that the church is about more than gays and abortions, which it hasn’t really been in the last few decades.” [note, I am aware that the church is and has always been about more than gays and abortion, this is just what they were saying.]
There is only one person on this earth that Obama is “hugely impressed” with.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall. . . . .
Alexandra, the reason I asked is because if abortion had come up as part of any in-depth discussion then I would have expected repentance to have been a part of the discussion for the ones who committed abortion.
For parity:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/another-pope-francis-off-the-cuff-interview-explosion
From the article Navi linked to:
“It is Pope Francis himself who should be far more carefully explaining to the world exactly what he meant and what his full reasoning was behind each of those confusing, controversial, very puzzling statements.”
Sorry, but I find that sentence laughable. According to Scripture, Jesus was known to say confusing, controversial, puzzling statements. If someone wants a careful explanation on a topic, read any Papal encyclical. If you want to be challenged to think outside your current box in a shocking, uncomfortable way, listen to a Pope Francis interview. Then puzzle out the meaning within the Catholic context/framework and with an open mind to hearing a new perspective.
truthseeker, like I said, no one there was Catholic. No one there sees anything wrong with abortion and no one’s mind is “changed,” no one was converted. The difference was, as I said, for the very first time, people were TALKING about the pope and Catholicism, and in a respectful or just genuinely interested way. If you “expect” repentance to come up in a workplace discussion like that, then you “expect” too much too fast.
I really hope Pope Francis never starts playing politics. I hope he continues to do what he’s doing. I think people on both sides are being unfair to him, either taking him out of context or condemning him for not saying what they wanted him to say.
“No one there sees anything wrong with abortion”
Alexandra, You just told me that abortion never came up; how can then turn around and say that no one there sees anything wrong with abortion?
Jack, I agree that we should let the Pope’s words speak for themselves. That is why I quoted him instead of giving my opinion of what he said.
Hi, Alexandra! Great to see you again, after my hiatus! :)
At the risk of sounding double-minded:
1) On the one hand, I agree with you; the Holy Father is saying and doing some necessary things even in these off-handed interviews, and none of his comments have contradicted Catholic doctrine in any way (not that Catholic doctrine is changed or promulgated through interviews with the secular press, anyway!), and it’s quite true that the Gospel consists of more than simply abortion, homosexuality, and the like.
2) On the other hand: it’s a plain fact that abortion is the largest killer (and of undeniably innocent people) in the world–far above the World Health Organisation’s “Top 10 most frequent causes of death” combined (and one of the ten is “prematurity”–which, depending on one’s definition, could include abortions anyway)… and it’s the deliberate choice to kill babies–HUMAN babies–in the womb of the mother (the one place where you’d expect to find safety for them, where they’re meant to grow and thrive). This is barbaric, and very powerful (and rick) social movements are working furiously to bring (and force, if necessary) this mindset upon the entire world. That’s why we pro-lifers spend such a seemingly “disproportionate amount of time and voice” on it. The Holy Father’s comment that , which was apparently meant as a civil, placatory comment to an atheist reporter, would be terribly demoralising to all fervent pro-life Catholics who might want to take his statement literally, at face-value, and out of the context which the Holy Father (as a man steeped in the moral law and a lively Catholic culture in Argentina) knows so well that he simply assumes everyone else to know and believe it, as well. That assumption (that everyone else knows the deep Catholic context of all these things) was an error, and the public nature of the error gave that error great power. The fact that this interview was granted to “America” magazine should have tipped off any experienced and faithful Catholic (or anyone who simply pays attention to these things)–since that magazine, though it would have an appeal to Pope Francis for being Jesuit-run–is one of the most politically liberal and dissention-ridden “Catholic” rags which ever saw print! (If anyone doubts this, perhaps they might read that magazine’s scolding of the USA bishops for decrying the HHS mandate [http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=118322], just as a sample.)
3) At this state, I’m far more worried about the effects of the Holy Father’s comments (and distorted bits of those comments, twisted and spun by the secular press in Europe and America), especially in the ears of those who don’t like or follow the crystal-clear teachings of the Catholic Church on these grave matters. Those who are sympathetic to “gay marriage”, to abortion, to contraception, and to virtually every other violation of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, were largely jumping out of their skins for joy at the Holy Father’s comments… which shows either that the wrong message reached them, or that they woefully misunderstood the message–since the Church’s teaching on the disordered nature of homosexuality, the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death, the immorality of artificial contraception, etc., has not changed, and it CANNOT change. the Gospel is “Good News”, NOT because it gives people who live sinful and/or disordered lifestyles (e.g. homosexual activity, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) license to remain as they are; rather, it’s “Good News” because it tells then that Jesus Christ DIED FOR THEM in order to “pay their way” OUT OF WHERE THEY ARE.
My hopes that the Pope might become more “shrewd/canny” in his choices of words and venue for his comments, then, is not a judgment on him (his only “fault” seems to be in thinking too highly of the moral compass of his audience–would that the world were worthy of his trust in us!); it is a judgment on his audience. Those who applaud the Pope most loudly seem very likely to be hoping that the Church will change Her position on one or more of those unchangeable things. Even on this forum, there are probably some people who hope the Pope will keep speaking as he did, not because of any furtherance of the Gospel, but because they happen to LIKE what they think the Holy Father meant (e.g. “Yay, the Pope is calling off all those meanies who want to thwart gay marriage, women priests, and more!”), regardless of whether the Church teaches those things or not.
You know the old saw, “God loves us just the way we are”? It’s a shame that more people don’t remember or recite the second part of that aphorism:
“…but He loves us too much to leave us there!”
“Alexandra, You just told me that abortion never came up; how can then turn around and say that no one there sees anything wrong with abortion?”
Why do you think I know nothing about these people except what was discussed in three separate casual conversations?
Agree to disagree, Paladin? :) I am not Catholic so it’s not like I get a valid opinion on this. But from where I sit (ie, not in a pew, nor near anyone who regularly sits in a pew) it seems to me that the Church has let herself be defined by a culture that itself is “defined” in some ways by abortion and homosexuality. The Church will never agree with these things but matching the fever pitch of the culture it exists within leaves the Church so vocal and one-note that it becomes defined as nothing more than “anti-this, anti-that.” Over the years, as I understood Catholicism more, I have found myself incredibly frustrated with the general cultural misunderstandings that surround the religion.
So the way it looks to me is, the pope is refocusing on the “pro” aspects of the Catholic Church. Which I think may sound redundant to a devout Catholic but which I can definitely attest sounds like something new to some non-Catholics. You can say all you want that you have to be pro-life to be Catholic, but what that does not do is tell anyone why they should even be interested in being Catholic. I never ever intended to become pro-life, and for years I had known the basic pro-life arguments and not really cared much about them; but I never really HEARD them until a very caring pro-life person cared about me – regardless of whether I was pro-life or pro-choice, didn’t really try to change my mind, didn’t mention it unwarranted, just didn’t let me say certain things uncontested – and eventually I found myself listening, and understanding. And changing. I’d heard everything that person said before, a thousand times. I’d heard it from that person before, even. But it was only when I felt truly loved and accepted that I LISTENED to it.
To me it seems like the question re: abortion is: is it more important to save lives, or souls? Now, I don’t really have an opinion on whether souls exist, so I think it’s easy to say it’s more important to save lives because that’s something concrete that we know about. But I think that if I believed in an eternal soul and eternal life, I might think it more vital to save souls – especially since saving lives would thus be a natural result of saving souls.
PS – very nice to see you back here!
Hi, Alexandra!
Re: your reply… I see your points, and I don’t begrudge them (and I agree with some of them). My main remaining concern is three-fold:
1) large numbers of people–most notably those who dissent from Catholic teaching (especially in matters of sexual morality)–seem to be enthusiastic about Pope Francis for all the wrong reasons… and reasons which cannot possibly last, since they are illusory. They praise an imaginary Pope Francis whom they’ve constructed in their own minds (built from tantalising bits handed them by the secular media)… and when that illusion finally falls, they will face a choice: deliberately continue believing in the fantasy, or become bitterly, painfully and angrily disillusioned.
Case in point: when such disparate groups as “gay marriage” advocacy groups, advocates for women priests, and even NARAL (who had a full-page spread on their Facebook page saying “Thank you”–I think it may still be there!) are so enthusiastic and supportive of what they suppose Pope Francis to have said, then it means one or more of three things: (a) the Pope has gone against Catholic teaching in matters of fundamental Faith and morals (which is absurd); (b) the Pope’s message has been distorted by either the wishful thinking and/or the ill-will of those who reported the Pope’s messages; or (c) the enthusiasts are either misunderstanding or misinterpreting (willfully or otherwise) the Pope’s messages. I’m of the near-certain opinion that we’re seeing a mixture of the last two.
2) When you speak of “saving souls” and of inviting people to the Faith, you must know that only the TRUE Faith will save; a counterfeit will not. If someone chooses only to believe that Jesus was a “nice guy” (whatever that might mean), and that His teachings are basically optional, then–if they are saved and attain Heaven at all–they will be saved DESPITE their errors and the false “gospel” which they follow, not BECAUSE of them. Mere presence in a Church (and/or enrollment in a particular parish, or enthusiastic singing in the choir or congregation, or pleasant fellowship with others) will no more “save” someone than presence in an airport hangar will transform one into an aeroplane!
3) Even from a secular point of view: it would (hypothetically) be grossly unjust and unfair for the Catholic Church to “entice” hordes of people into so-called “membership” (see above, re: the idea that being in the pews or on the Church rolls doesn’t make one “Christian”), only to pull a “bait-and-switch” on them when they finally find out that the Church can’t possibly change the things they want the Church to change. It’d be a bit like letting friends assume that you’re leading them to a lavish, satisfying banquet, when you know from the start that the place doesn’t serve food at all. Could you blame the duped people for being upset? Alternately: if a local group of Catholic dissidents invites many of these hordes into their particular parishes (in their own vain hopes that the Church will change soon… or that they’ll be able to *force* the Church to change soon, with such large numbers), and then *all* of them find that their efforts at “change” are doomed to failure, do you really think that’d be fair to anyone? One might possibly gain a few converts for one’s own phony “dissident (c)atholic church”, but one wouldn’t be a single jot closer to “saving” such people. Man-made-and-crafted religions cannot save anyone; that’s why they’re called “idols”.
In short: even basic honesty demands that we not hope for “converts” under such false pretenses. The cult of popularity which has built itself around Pope Francis (without his deliberate efforts to build it, mind you) is a thing quite independent of–and quite far removed from–the Gospel. Is it possible that the occasional member of that “groupie group” might be struck by Grace and embrace the true Gospel? Of course; the Holy Spirit is far from powerless, and He’s far from idle. But it’s simply off-base to think that the current secular popularity of the Holy Father has anything especially to do with that, or that it would help matters in that regard; it’s much more likely to hurt, in the long run (as described above).
When the most pro-abortion president to ever hold the office says he is “hugely impressed” with the Pope be afraid, be very afraid (not literally but figuratively). As a Christ-follower “God has not given me a spirit of fear but of power, of love and of a sound mind” I will pray for the Pope to have exceptional wisdom and discernment to know that people like BHO are eager to twist his words for their own purposes. I will continue to pray for the president as well who I believe is an enemy of the sanctity of human life (both in and out of the womb, the mentally disabled, and the infirm elderly), the sanctity of marriage and the religious liberties of those who stand for these issues. I believe unless God’ intervenes and God’s people stand together persecution will come sooner to the church, Christian businesses, ministries, organizations, and individuals It is no accident that pro-life organizations and even the Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization are being targeted by the IRS to deny their tax-exempt status, that no longer is a Christian adoption and foster care organization like Catholic Services who has provided services for years considered “suitable” by the government because they will not allow the state to redefine what is a “family”.
Paladin, I apologize if I implied a bait-and-switch of any sort. To my knowledge, the pope isn’t saying anything that ISN’T true of Catholicism. He’s just speaking more of the things that the church can give to people rather than merely the things it will require of people. And I think we have a very heavy cultural awareness of the things the church requires of people, but not so much of the things that it “gives” to people.
NARAL etc don’t really mean much to me. I sort of assume that they will use anything said to their advantage. Unpopular stuff, they will rail against. Stuff that warms people, they will try to own as theirs. The enemy of my friend is not necessarily my enemy – I mean, if NARAL thanked the church for giving aid to underprivileged children, I wouldn’t suddenly worry that it was wrong to give aid to underprivileged children. I’d just think that it was so right that basically no one can oppose it.
Alexandra wrote:
Paladin, I apologize if I implied a bait-and-switch of any sort.
Oh, I didn’t think that *you* implied a “bait-and-switch”, at all! I was expressing concern that the situation (of those who now feel that they can come to Christ and His Church without repenting of their sins and errors) would function as a “bait-and-switch”, by its very nature. When people start rejoicing and saying things like, “Oh, boy… the Church is lightening up on abortion and homosexuality and contraception and all the other things I don’t want to change! I’m lovin’ it!”, then I fear for them… and for those who will receive their wrath when they discover the profound depth of their error. (I fear even more for those who fall in with heterodox “Catholics” who enable such people in their error for the rest of their lives, deceiving them into thinking that the Gospel will “work” without needing to convert in any serious way; “Gospel lite” is not a Gospel at all, and it will neither fulfill in this life nor save eternally in the next.)
To my knowledge, the pope isn’t saying anything that ISN’T true of Catholicism.
Content-wise, no… absolutely not. Style-wise, his delivery is a bit naive; he seems not to be used to the idea of talking to the world (as opposed to his home culture of Argentina, which has quite different spiritual and social dynamics than do Europe the United States), and his penchant for speaking “off-the-cuff”–while perhaps sentimentally endearing to many (some call that a “populist” tone), can cause a great deal of unintentional damage to the extent that it makes the audience more prone to believe error. The Pope really doesn’t seem to understand the extent to which his USA/European audience is hungry, even ravenous, for “permission” to keep their abortion and homosexuality and contraception (and all other violations of Catholic teaching on sexual morality); they’re almost frantic, akin to a man who thirsts pitifully and who sees the promise of a glass of water. The shame and pity is that the “thirsty man” has rabies–in which the drink he so craves will kill him, not heal or fulfill or refresh him.
He’s just speaking more of the things that the church can give to people rather than merely the things it will require of people. And I think we have a very heavy cultural awareness of the things the church requires of people, but not so much of the things that it “gives” to people.
Perhaps, outside of the Catholic Church, there is that misconception (though, have you honestly never heard that Christianity offers *eternal salvation*? That’s really not a secret or novel or unknown idea to you and your friends, is it? People may scoff at it, but they’ve at least heard it, yes?). But–speaking as a Catholic who goes to Mass every day–I can count on one hand the number of times that I’ve heard a sermon against abortion (and I know some very orthodox priests!), I can count on one finger the number of times I’ve heard a sermon against artificial contraception, and I’ve *never* heard any Catholic priest or deacon preach about the inherently disordered nature of homosexuality. I’m not sure where people are getting the idea that the Church in the modern world is so “into rules and demands”… but it isn’t from the Church in the modern world. With rare (and blessed) exceptions, the vast majority of modern priests (especially those who received seminary training in the 1960’s, 1970’s, and early 1980’s) preach a very feel-good, sentimental pablum of “God is love” (which is true, but they completely misunderstand love) and “Don’t worry, be happy” and “don’t upset the money donors who happen to be divorced and remarried outside the Church, or contracepting, or living a homosexual lifestyle”.
Can you give any references to your local Catholic parish which *is* into such “take, take, rules, rules”?
NARAL etc don’t really mean much to me. I sort of assume that they will use anything said to their advantage.
That’s true, up to a point. But there’s such a thing as making it spectacularly easy for them. For example: when Pope Benedict XVI was misquoted as “approving condoms for AIDS sufferers”, even a cursory reading of his text showed that to be ridiculous; the press was counting on the idea that Pope Benedict’s writings were at such a high level that no one would bother reading them carefully to double-check–it was a blatantly obvious case of journalistic deception and over-reach. But in the case of Pope Francis, who (in the enthusiasm and effusion of the moment, in an interview) uses words that would ordinarily mean a chastisement of those who supposedly “focus too much on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc.”… THAT is a problem… and no one in the press needed to work strenuously at all, to enact it.
The enemy of my friend is not necessarily my enemy – I mean, if NARAL thanked the church for giving aid to underprivileged children, I wouldn’t suddenly worry that it was wrong to give aid to underprivileged children.
Believe me… if NARAL were to praise something that was objectively good, I would not condemn it in the least. But that is not the case, here; they were thanking Pope Francis for allegedly “easing up on abortion”.
I’d just think that it was so right that basically no one can oppose it.
That’s precisely the problem: most people (perhaps even you) may be susceptible to the idea (and you may rejoice in the idea) that Pope Francis is “lightening up” on (for example) homosexuality… and that is simply not true, and letting people be deceived into thinking that he *is* doing that (and “loving” him for it) is simply cruel: it sets them up for a painful fall, and it sets the Church up for yet another black eye, and it scandalises the people themselves (i.e. makes it easier for people to sin).
I’ve heard from more people than I can count, who have dedicated their lives to fighting abortion (and loving the women who are ravaged by it, loving-yet-resisting-firmly those who perpetrate it and legislate it, and slaving away thanklessly on days when they could easily have thrown it all aside and gone to bed), who feel as if the Pope’s comments have punched them in the stomach. Some of them were literally in tears, piteously asking why the Holy Father had undercut everything they do in the eyes of everyone who sees them. They felt betrayed and abandoned by the one person they thought they could trust to support them. That, Alexandra, is BAD. The Holy Father was careless and naive (though talking with the best of intentions), and the secular media is making hay out of it while the sun shines, as they say. By the time the secular media propaganda finally clears (if it ever does, in the public square), who will remember the true meaning of Pope Francis’s sincere-though-impulsive words? True, he said nothing against the Faith… but damage has been done, nonetheless. I do not blame him (trusting into the goodwill of your audience is hardly a moral failing), and I respect him as a man who is unspeakably wise in so very many areas; but I do lament it, and I do pray for greater prudence and wisdom for him, in this particular area.
Hi Paladin. Welcome back!!!
Thanks for your post explaining why it is like being “punched in the stomach” to many active prolifers how the Pope’s comments are being lauded by pro-aborts. I am not Catholic but it felt like that to me to hear how the media and even the president have used his interview to be “hugely impressed” with the new Pope. You expressed it much more articulately than I could have. Thank you.
Hello, Prolifer! :)
Terribly sorry for the delay; I wasn’t watching this thread as closely as I might have…
Thank you for the kind words; it’s nice to be back! And yes… I love our Holy Father, but I think it’s undeniable that his interview has done a good deal of damage, against his every desire to do good by it! God will provide… but it still hurts, in the meantime, and it’s become a bit wearisome to hear even fervent Catholics try to “spin” the Pope’s words so strongly as to make a “victory” out of it… which simply doesn’t seem to square with the reality on the ground.
Perhaps the Holy Father would do better if he stuck to writing? (Pope Benedict XVI was exceptionally good at not overstepping his target when speaking or writing; perhaps he might mentor Pope Francis in that respect, a bit…)
I am praying the Pope will be able to recover the damage done as well because the main stream media and my local paper even had a so-called “Catholic” homosexual activist gushing about how excited he was to hear the comments by the Pope and ( I am paraphrasing here) how much the church needed to “get with the times” instead remaining in the dark ages of Biblical teaching. It did hurt me to hear this but I tried to “consider the source” of MSM and how they had their own agenda.
This week I was working on a carpentry crew with 12 other people, all men, all single/unmarried, all mid-30s, none religious in any way.
So you are a carpenter? Good for you! I keep on hearing about student loans and making college affordable, but not everyone is college material. No one talks to young people about entering a skill trade, especially if they are middle or upper class kids — it’s just not done. I don’t know why people look down on men and women who work with their hands. I’m sure you make more than I do and I have a college degree and you’re not chained to a stinkin’ desk all day.
Paladin and Prolifer L, I understand what you are saying. The Obamabots/proaborts in my office just love Pope Francis, and that is NOT a good sign.
Yep, phillymiss :) I’m a scenic/theatrical carpenter, which is somewhat different than carpentry in construction industries, but not entirely so. Right now, I split my time between labor and management – in between scenic carpentry jobs, I do scenic project management, where I manage the building of theatrical or television scenery on a per-show basis. Even though I already work as a carpenter in the industry, I am waiting to get my placement for an apprenticeship in my city’s local of the union; my city’s local is very prestigious, and basically every four years or so they offer a mechanical aptitude exam to open the doors up to new members (this is one of three ways that people can join this local). Hundreds of people take it but only the top 40 scorers get an apprenticeship, which are passed out as they free up over the next couple years; when your apprenticeship comes up you are assigned to work in a venue for two years, after which point you are considered a fully trained member of this local of the union. I took the exam when it came back around last year and scored in the top ten, so now I’m just waiting to see where they place me.
I don’t have a college degree and at this point I don’t intend to ever pay for one. I also don’t necessarily think that any children of mine would need a degree. I certainly wouldn’t consider it a “given.” I figure, trades are NEVER going away – you can’t outsource plumbing or electrics or those things. If I had a child who was a young adult today, in this current economy, I’d definitely encourage her to study and work a trade for at least a few years before deciding to pursue a degree, rather than figuring out “what to do” after four years of expensive elective education. If nothing else, lots of trades in lots of cities PAY YOU to learn (ie via apprenticeship) rather than charge you to learn, so you really can’t go wrong giving it a shot or doing it until you figure out what else to do.
When I was younger, like many of my peers I never questioned the “need” for a college education, I just assumed I needed one. I got full merit scholarships to many colleges, and I chose one of those to attend, but I forfeited that scholarship when I went on an open-ended leave of absence when my mother had cancer, and I just never went back. Initially I intended to save up money to eventually return to school but now that I’m 30 and still doing fine for myself, and I see how much worse off so many of my peers are, in the same situation as me for the most part but saddled with student loans that I don’t have…well, I have no interest in that. Many people think it’s “a shame” that things turned out this way for me, as I am mostly an academic-minded person and I always meant to be a librarian – but I don’t need to go to school to keep learning! And I don’t need to be something brainy-sounding like a librarian to prove (to whom?) that I’m intelligent. I listen to lectures on iTunes U and I study topics on my own in depth, using the NY Public Library’s vast resources. I read the newspaper every day on the train to work, I belong to art museums so that I can visit them regularly, I read about six books a month. I didn’t ever stop learning, I just stopped paying for it, haha. I opted out of a lot of jobs and closed a lot of doors to my own future possibilities when I stopped paying to learn, but I still get by just fine, and I’m happy this way.
Lots of people think I’m too small to be a carpenter – let’s just say I can fit into children’s clothing – but it’s not all about physical size. And sometimes you want a small person, anyway. I do a lot of rigging – installing and safety-ing the scenery, lighting, and support structures that hang over the stage or over the audience – and I can fit both my body and my hands into places that other people struggle to access, plus I’m more agile, which counts for a lot when you’re dozens of feet up in the air in a harness. Not to mention, a lot of carpentry is just being “smarter” than any given piece, not necessarily stronger than it. And let me tell anyone who thinks working a manual trade is for “dumb people” – you definitely don’t want a dumb person rigging the stuff that hangs over your head at that concert! I use more math, physics, and basic chemistry on any given day than most of my friends who went to college do. So yeah, I get pretty tired of the stereotypes, it’s safe to say!
An added bonus of my job is that I never need to go to the gym – I get plenty of exercise at work. Win-win for me, as I’m waaaaay too lazy to ever go to the gym.