GOPer from Arizona Decides He's the Pope's Boss

Well the church has always tended to be too hierarchical.

In an Op-Ed on Clown Town Hall, Congressman Paul Gosar explains why he's going to boycott the Pope's address to Congress. The reason? He's going to talk about climate change. Gosar thinks he should talk about something else.

Now there's so much wrong with his piece it's hard to know where to begin. But from the first paragraph:

"Many believed, like I did, that this was an opportunity for the Pope to
be one of the world’s great religious advocates and address the current
intolerance of religious freedom. An opportunity to urgently challenge
governments to properly address the persecution and execution of
Christians and religious minorities; to address the heinous and
senseless murders committed by ISIS and other terrorist organizations.
An opportunity to address the enslavement, belittlement, rape and
desecration of Christian women and children; to address the condoned,
subsidized, intentionally planned genocide of unborn children by Planned
Parenthood and society; and finally, an opportunity for His Holiness to
refocus our priorities on right from wrong.

Followed by the second paragraph (in part):

"But when the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one.

It's clear that the Pope is expected to act and talk like a rightist politician instead. Conservatives too often seem to know what somebody else should be talking about, which particular words and phrases somebody else should be uttering (American exceptionalism and so on).

The one thought (I use the term loosely) that stuck out is the lead to paragraph 3:

"The earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man. On that, we should all agree.

Yes we do agree. It's a statement that's incontrovertibly true and simultaneously completely meaningless.

The climate was changing when mega-meteors hit and launched global catastrophes that killed 90% of the life on earth. The climate will be changing a billion year from now when the sun turns into a red giant, boils away the oceans and begins to melt Earth's crust.

Even the creationists would have to agree that the climate was changing when God sent a flood to wipe out every living person besides Noah and his family.

To which you have to say, So? Were there people alive in Noah's day, let's call them Great Flood denialists, who said the climate has always been changing? Probably. But what happened to them?

Then this gem:

"If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time.

As though the Pope punches a time clock and reports directly to the House Tea Party Caucus.

----

The sheer delusions these people hold are beyond my comprehension. "If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line," is perhaps best answered with, "standard Christian theology is about saving souls, not your own personal agendas."

Every time I think we've hit rock bottom, some GOPer outdoes the last. Tangentially, one of today's major GOP House accomplishments was "defunding" Planned Parenthood.

Though I'll say this: a few American Catholic clergy in this country aren't too keen on the Pope's focus either. They seem to be stepping gingerly into opposing Church politics.

Maybe, just maybe, the Pope is bringing a message from God, and we all should listen... On second thought, nah, not possible. There is no $$$$ involved, so it couldn't possibly be the case.

pmartinezv said:
Maybe, just maybe, the Pope is bringing a message from God, and we all should listen... On second thought, nah, not possible. There is no $$$$ involved, so it couldn't possibly be the case.

Not only that, there's no sexual activity involved.

tom said:

pmartinezv said:
Maybe, just maybe, the Pope is bringing a message from God, and we all should listen... On second thought, nah, not possible. There is no $$$$ involved, so it couldn't possibly be the case.

Not only that, there's no sexual activity involved.

Huh?

Was there someone in the crowd at the Sermon on the Mount complaining that Jesus wasn't talking about how horribly the Romans were treating people?

Not being a Christian and not having studied the New Testament I do not know the answer. Perhaps someone can help.

ParticleMan said:

tom said:

pmartinezv said:
Maybe, just maybe, the Pope is bringing a message from God, and we all should listen... On second thought, nah, not possible. There is no $$$$ involved, so it couldn't possibly be the case.

Not only that, there's no sexual activity involved.

Huh?

It's what abortion politics and gay marriage have in common.

Catholics typically don't put "climate change" on the top of the list when considering what the Church should be discussing with worldly powers. If it's true the address will mostly revolve around a leftist talking point I can understand why he'd be inclined to stay away.

For what it's worth, the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, so there's no implication that he's stating anything as God's rule.

I do find it funny when people who despise the Church, its teachings, its clergy and adherents start shouting about how the Pope said this or that when it lines up with their political beliefs. Suddenly he's a great man speaking the word of someone they don't believe in but is on message

It's akin to people who complain that the N.Y. Times is a leftist rag and then cite it when it suits them.

People are inconsistent.

ParticleMan said:
It's akin to people who complain that the N.Y. Times is a leftist rag and then cite it when it suits them.
People are inconsistent.

No, it's not. If you understood the role of the Pope in the Church and his various outlets for communicating with the Church Universal you'd not say that. Comparing it to a newspaper is...odd.

Do you think all Communists in the 80's suddenly became excommunicated or were in bad standing with the Church?

ParticleMan said:
It's akin to people who complain that the N.Y. Times is a leftist rag and then cite it when it suits them.
People are inconsistent.

People will cite it because they are saying 'see, even this leftist rag agrees with me'.

I am also not a Catholic, but from what I know of that religion the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Therefore the House member is under no compulsion to listen to him and if he wants to express his disagreement with what he thinks the Pope is going to say in the area of politics by boycotting him, that's his choice. The fact that people are discussing it indicates he is having some impact.

I have made it clear in the past I like this Pope and will happily listen to what he has to say.

As a non-Catholic I have been disturbed by the Roman Catholic Church's deep involvement with the political and governmental issue of abortion. I appreciate that the Church has the right to its Religious belief regarding abortion and to demand of its adherents that they not have abortions or participate in abortions, and even that they preach to everyone their position on abortion. I have never understood why they want to impose their position on non-Catholics through governmental action.

I have also wondered why opposition to abortion plays an outsized role in the Church's preaching and without being a Christian know that there is a lot more to Christianity and the teaching of the New Testament than abortion. So I am glad when the Pope begins to preach the rest of the Gospel and what many Christians seem to believe is the core of the teachings of Jesus, which is help for the poor and afflicted.

Still I would not want to see the Church attempting to impose its view on non-Catholics. There are Catholic clergy who have denied communion to politicians who favor "choice". I hope I would be as outraged if a Priest denied communion to a Catholic Member of Congress who disagreed on climate change or specific programs to help the poor.

Now, consider this with respect to the interface between Religion and Politics:

Will this Pope's attention to issues of poverty and environmental issues open the minds of "Leftists" to the Pope's position on abortion?

BCC said:
I am also not a Catholic, but from what I know of that religion the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Therefore the House member is under no compulsion to listen to him and if he wants to express his disagreement with what he thinks the Pope is going to say in the area of politics by boycotting him, that's his choice. The fact that people are discussing it indicates he is having some impact.
I have made it clear in the past I like this Pope and will happily listen to what he has to say.

Does this Congressman walk off the House floor whenever another Congressman with whom he disagrees gets up to speak? As a Conservative Republican does he boycott the State of the Union address by Obama?

Frankly I think he is a publicity seeking jerk.

LOST said:
As a non-Catholic I have been disturbed by the Roman Catholic Church's deep involvement with the political and governmental issue of abortion. I appreciate that the Church has the right to its Religious belief regarding abortion and to demand of its adherents that they not have abortions or participate in abortions, and even that they preach to everyone their position on abortion. I have never understood why they want to impose their position on non-Catholics through governmental action.
I have also wondered why opposition to abortion plays an outsized role in the Church's preaching and without being a Christian know that there is a lot more to Christianity and the teaching of the New Testament than abortion. So I am glad when the Pope begins to preach the rest of the Gospel and what many Christians seem to believe is the core of the teachings of Jesus, which is help for the poor and afflicted.
Still I would not want to see the Church attempting to impose its view on non-Catholics. There are Catholic clergy who have denied communion to politicians who favor "choice". I hope I would be as outraged if a Priest denied communion to a Catholic Member of Congress who disagreed on climate change or specific programs to help the poor.
Now, consider this with respect to the interface between Religion and Politics:
Will this Pope's attention to issues of poverty and environmental issues open the minds of "Leftists" to the Pope's position on abortion?

They want to impose their views on society for the same reason society frowns on murder and imposes those views on society.

If you believe life begins at conception then abortion is the taking of human life i.e. murder.

LOST said:

BCC said:
I am also not a Catholic, but from what I know of that religion the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Therefore the House member is under no compulsion to listen to him and if he wants to express his disagreement with what he thinks the Pope is going to say in the area of politics by boycotting him, that's his choice. The fact that people are discussing it indicates he is having some impact.
I have made it clear in the past I like this Pope and will happily listen to what he has to say.

Does this Congressman walk off the House floor whenever another Congressman with whom he disagrees gets up to speak? As a Conservative Republican does he boycott the State of the Union address by Obama?
Frankly I think he is a publicity seeking jerk.

He may very well be and I have no idea what he does at other times. OTOH 'another congressman' is not the Pope and is hardly likely to get the publicity the Pope will get. If he walked out on another Congress man would we be talking about it?

BCC said:

They want to impose their views on society for the same reason society frowns on murder and imposes those views on society.
If you believe life begins at conception then abortion is the taking of human life i.e. murder.

As you say "society" frowns on murder, that is, all of society. The reason murder is a crime is because a society cannot function if murder is allowed. A society can certainly function, and does function, without criminalizing all abortion.

If a significant but minority percentage of Americans, let's say 25% were vegetarians who believed the killing of an animal, any animal, was tantamount to murder, should they be allowed to impose their belief on the 75% so that any non-vegetarian who shot a deer would be sent to prison?

The "Right to Life" movement has failed, in my opinion, because they have spent all their time and effort attempting to impose their viewpoint through law rather than by converting the majority to their point of view by persuasion.

Compare the results of the 40 years of the "Right to Life" campaign with the 40 years of the anti-tobacco campaign. The latter spent lots of time and effort on laws restricting smoking but equal time and effort on changing people's thinking.

I do find it funny when people who despise the Church, its teachings, its clergy and adherents start shouting about how the Pope said this or that when it lines up with their political beliefs. Suddenly he's a great man speaking the word of someone they don't believe in but is on message

I'm a "recovering catholic" from the days when it was mysterious and unwelcoming. It's not so funny if you think of it as the Church becoming more in line with Jesus's teachings. Everything is political, but the fact, and I do mean fact, of climate change is that it will afflict people in poor countries much more than it will affect the rich. Jesus had this thing for the poor, apparently. And the rigidity of the U.S. clergy (in the Northeast, at least) has been very unwelcoming for those of us whose politics lean left. The Big Guy's focus has been upsetting for conservative Catholics; so has the activism of American nuns.

LOST said:

BCC said:

They want to impose their views on society for the same reason society frowns on murder and imposes those views on society.
If you believe life begins at conception then abortion is the taking of human life i.e. murder.

As you say "society" frowns on murder, that is, all of society. The reason murder is a crime is because a society cannot function if murder is allowed. A society can certainly function, and does function, without criminalizing all abortion.
If a significant but minority percentage of Americans, let's say 25% were vegetarians who believed the killing of an animal, any animal, was tantamount to murder, should they be allowed to impose their belief on the 75% so that any non-vegetarian who shot a deer would be sent to prison?
The "Right to Life" movement has failed, in my opinion, because they have spent all their time and effort attempting to impose their viewpoint through law rather than by converting the majority to their point of view by persuasion.
Compare the results of the 40 years of the "Right to Life" campaign with the 40 years of the anti-tobacco campaign. The latter spent lots of time and effort on laws restricting smoking but equal time and effort on changing people's thinking.

In the eyes of Catholics cigarettes and animals are not on an equal moral plane as human life. You can argue that in your own life, but you'll likely not convince many.

In the eyes of Catholics, abortion as an absolute evil is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Therefore, in a democratic society where laws are made by the people through their representatives, what else should they do than lobby to change the law?

They do spend a tremendous amount of time trying to change people's hearts on the issue. I don't know how anyone could miss that.

What you suggest would be tantamount to my suggesting that instead of trying to impose economic burdens through regulation and law on others to address global warming you instead focus only on persuasion, but ultimately allow the unpersuaded to do what they want. If that was all the global warming cadre was doing I doubt anyone would care.

As an aside- you mention "society". As a "society" there are many things that are expedient to the larger "society". Slavery, apartheid, extermination. Terrible objective evils that nevertheless served awider "society". The Church focuses on the unique specialness of the individual as a child of God- the malformed, the poor, the old, the lonely, friendless. It is very little concerned with "society" as such except in the way society treats the least among it- including the most utterly helpless, the unborn.

LOST said:

BCC said:

They want to impose their views on society for the same reason society frowns on murder and imposes those views on society.
If you believe life begins at conception then abortion is the taking of human life i.e. murder.

As you say "society" frowns on murder, that is, all of society. The reason murder is a crime is because a society cannot function if murder is allowed. A society can certainly function, and does function, without criminalizing all abortion.
If a significant but minority percentage of Americans, let's say 25% were vegetarians who believed the killing of an animal, any animal, was tantamount to murder, should they be allowed to impose their belief on the 75% so that any non-vegetarian who shot a deer would be sent to prison?
The "Right to Life" movement has failed, in my opinion, because they have spent all their time and effort attempting to impose their viewpoint through law rather than by converting the majority to their point of view by persuasion.
Compare the results of the 40 years of the "Right to Life" campaign with the 40 years of the anti-tobacco campaign. The latter spent lots of time and effort on laws restricting smoking but equal time and effort on changing people's thinking.

You asked why they want to impose their views on society and I gave you the answer.

You are probably right about converting the majority (Pro choice recently has done so) and if you recall, I m pro-Choice so I don't agree with pro-Lifers.

Having said that, comparing the Catholic Church to the vegitarians is something of a stretch.

Catholic teaching doesn't fit easily into American politics - which isn't surprising as politics is specific to a country and Catholicism is a global religion. Plenty of conservative American politicians are happy to take a subset of Catholic teaching and fashion political talking points around it. This congressman seems upset about being confronted by the fact that Catholicism is, in fact, larger and broader than the narrow interests of his political party.

Jackson_Fusion said:
Catholics typically don't put "climate change" on the top of the list when considering what the Church should be discussing with worldly powers. If it's true the address will mostly revolve around a leftist talking point I can understand why he'd be inclined to stay away.
For what it's worth, the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, so there's no implication that he's stating anything as God's rule.
I do find it funny when people who despise the Church, its teachings, its clergy and adherents start shouting about how the Pope said this or that when it lines up with their political beliefs. Suddenly he's a great man speaking the word of someone they don't believe in but is on message

PVW said:
Catholic teaching doesn't fit easily into American politics - which isn't surprising as politics is specific to a country and Catholicism is a global religion. Plenty of conservative American politicians are happy to take a subset of Catholic teaching and fashion political talking points around it. This congressman seems upset about being confronted by the fact that Catholicism is, in fact, larger and broader than the narrow interests of his political party.

Jackson_Fusion said:
Catholics typically don't put "climate change" on the top of the list when considering what the Church should be discussing with worldly powers. If it's true the address will mostly revolve around a leftist talking point I can understand why he'd be inclined to stay away.
For what it's worth, the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, so there's no implication that he's stating anything as God's rule.
I do find it funny when people who despise the Church, its teachings, its clergy and adherents start shouting about how the Pope said this or that when it lines up with their political beliefs. Suddenly he's a great man speaking the word of someone they don't believe in but is on message

The beauty of all this is if the guy said he follows his religious beliefs in voting pro-life the harridans would be screaming at him for following the dictat of the Holy See and betraying his constituents. But since it's leftist article of faith that's being questioned, he's being called a bad Catholic by people who aren't Catholics or are in some cases outright hostile to them in all other seasons.

Jackson_Fusion said:

In the eyes of Catholics cigarettes and animals are not on an equal moral plane as human life. You can argue that in your own life, but you'll likely not convince many.
In the eyes of Catholics, abortion as an absolute evil is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Therefore, in a democratic society where laws are made by the people through their representatives, what else should they do than lobby to change the law?
They do spend a tremendous amount of time trying to change people's hearts on the issue. I don't know how anyone could miss that.
What you suggest would be tantamount to my suggesting that instead of trying to impose economic burdens through regulation and law on others to address global warming you instead focus only on persuasion, but ultimately allow the unpersuaded to do what they want. If that was all the global warming cadre was doing I doubt anyone would care.
As an aside- you mention "society". As a "society" there are many things that are expedient to the larger "society". Slavery, apartheid, extermination. Terrible objective evils that nevertheless served awider "society". The Church focuses on the unique specialness of the individual as a child of God- the malformed, the poor, the old, the lonely, friendless. It is very little concerned with "society" as such except in the way society treats the least among it- including the most utterly helpless, the unborn.

1. There may be religions that consider living animals the moral equivalent of human fetuses. There are certainly Americans who do.

2. Orthodox Muslims may consider a woman appearing in public with her face exposed as "absolute evil". If Muslims began lobbying to make that law, what would be the response? Is it just a question that there are far more Catholics in the US than Muslims?

3. I guess I did miss the Church's efforts to "change people's hearts". I haven't seen TV ads on this. Both the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Lubavitch Hassidim have leafleted me numerous times. I don't recall ever being leafleted by the "Pro-Life" movement.

4. Global warming, if true, affects everyone. My neighbor having an abortion has no effect on me.

5. The "unborn" are " the most utterly helpless. That begs the question of whether they are people. But certainly infants, small children, the very old and infirm are utterly helpless. WE are just thankful that this Pope seems to be concerned with them as well. And, again to politics, the small children of "illegal aliens" are utterly helpless but a bunch of politicians seem intent on imposing harm upon them.

Jackson_Fusion said:

The beauty of all this is if the guy said he follows his religious beliefs in voting pro-life the harridans would be screaming at him for following the dictat of the Holy See and betraying his constituents. But since it's leftist article of faith that's being questioned, he's being called a bad Catholic by people who aren't Catholics or are in some cases outright hostile to them in all other seasons.

As a non-Catholic I don't have a right to judge him as a Catholic. I just think he's a bad politician.

For reference on vegetarianism and religion:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Vegetarian+Religions

Comparative religious views on abortion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion

Again, why should the adherents of one religion attempt to use Government to impose their views on the adherents of another religion in a pluralistic, religiously diverse country?

In general I'm not a fan of labeling people good or bad Catholics. I can say that as a liberal, I feel like I'm more often on the receiving end, but that doesn't make it ok for liberals to turn that around and call conservatives bad Catholics.

That said, this isn't a case of calling the congressman a bad Catholic -- he's calling the pope a bad Catholic! The pope is preaching a Catholicism that doesn't fit comfortably within American conservative political orthodoxy, and this congressman's response is to double down on partisanship.

Jackson_Fusion said:

The beauty of all this is if the guy said he follows his religious beliefs in voting pro-life the harridans would be screaming at him for following the dictat of the Holy See and betraying his constituents. But since it's leftist article of faith that's being questioned, he's being called a bad Catholic by people who aren't Catholics or are in some cases outright hostile to them in all other seasons.

Heck with the climate change argument; anyone read anthing he has to say about capitalism in his now famous/infamous Laudato Si'? The guy is way left of Bernie.

"Once more we must reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations?" (paragraph 190)

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

In the eyes of Catholics cigarettes and animals are not on an equal moral plane as human life. You can argue that in your own life, but you'll likely not convince many.
In the eyes of Catholics, abortion as an absolute evil is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Therefore, in a democratic society where laws are made by the people through their representatives, what else should they do than lobby to change the law?
They do spend a tremendous amount of time trying to change people's hearts on the issue. I don't know how anyone could miss that.
What you suggest would be tantamount to my suggesting that instead of trying to impose economic burdens through regulation and law on others to address global warming you instead focus only on persuasion, but ultimately allow the unpersuaded to do what they want. If that was all the global warming cadre was doing I doubt anyone would care.
As an aside- you mention "society". As a "society" there are many things that are expedient to the larger "society". Slavery, apartheid, extermination. Terrible objective evils that nevertheless served awider "society". The Church focuses on the unique specialness of the individual as a child of God- the malformed, the poor, the old, the lonely, friendless. It is very little concerned with "society" as such except in the way society treats the least among it- including the most utterly helpless, the unborn.

1. There may be religions that consider living animals the moral equivalent of human fetuses. There are certainly Americans who do.
2. Orthodox Muslims may consider a woman appearing in public with her face exposed as "absolute evil". If Muslims began lobbying to make that law, what would be the response? Is it just a question that there are far more Catholics in the US than Muslims?
3. I guess I did miss the Church's efforts to "change people's hearts". I haven't seen TV ads on this. Both the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Lubavitch Hassidim have leafleted me numerous times. I don't recall ever being leafleted by the "Pro-Life" movement.
4. Global warming, if true, affects everyone. My neighbor having an abortion has no effect on me.
5. The "unborn" are " the most utterly helpless. That begs the question of whether they are people. But certainly infants, small children, the very old and infirm are utterly helpless. WE are just thankful that this Pope seems to be concerned with them as well. And, again to politics, the small children of "illegal aliens" are utterly helpless but a bunch of politicians seem intent on imposing harm upon them.

Jackson_Fusion said:


The beauty of all this is if the guy said he follows his religious beliefs in voting pro-life the harridans would be screaming at him for following the dictat of the Holy See and betraying his constituents. But since it's leftist article of faith that's being questioned, he's being called a bad Catholic by people who aren't Catholics or are in some cases outright hostile to them in all other seasons.

As a non-Catholic I don't have a right to judge him as a Catholic. I just think he's a bad politician.

I must have missed the either/or clause in the first amendment, the one that says If one chooses to exercise their freedom of religion, they give up their right to petition the government.

This clause only applies to traditional religions, I suppose, and not new faiths like veganism, Gaia worship, extreme humanism or whatever the kids are practicing these days to buy there way into....somewhere. There you can petition all you want.

Sample the kid's DNA and I guarantee you, it comes back human, and different from the mother. To borrow a phrase, The Science Is Settled(tm). All that need happen from there is figuring out which day prior to birth you're ok with. 1st trimester, second, month 8.... Different strokes. For the Catholics, it's moment 0. Are they all that different from all but the most extreme abortion advocates except in degree and timing? Maybe it's when a child can survive outside the womb without the mother. Medical science keeps dialing that back as well- so if that's the bogie, keep the views current with the science!

I confess I don't waste time listening to Ingrid Newkirk's babble about dogs being rats being boys. I am aware there are Americans who believe that (am assuming you do not as you did not claim to). It's the sort of stuff most people get over somewhere in their lives, usually around Sophomore year.

You couldn't have missed the pro life movement, all the marches....seriously? They love marches! "I don't know how Nixon got elected- nobody I know voted for him!" In fairness, we're not exactly in the sort of area where such petitioning is likely to be met with warmth or even civility, if the various threads on MOL are any indication. True, one should suffer the slings and arrows and all that, but there is more fertile ground in which to spread the word were one so inclined.

As far as some Muslims beating the piss out of uncovered women being the same as being pro life.... Well, that's quite a doozy, and I suppose the crux of the issue. Leftists view it as a women's right issue, where a bunch of men want to turn women into brood sows and strip them of their rights. Catholics view it as a sanctity of life issue, but the left can't believe they're seriou. Solipsism does that.

"The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or increased pollution. In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved." (paragraph 195)