Pope Francis too liberal for US House Republicans

[merithyn]

This is from Huffington Post, so take it with a grain of salt or four, but I'm not actually surprised by this. I wondered how long it would be before something like this came up.

A bipartisan resolution written to honor Pope Francis for his work towards social justice appears to be mired in Congress, reportedly due to his reputation among Republicans as being "too liberal," according to The Hill. The pope is expected to visit the United States in 2015 for the Catholic Church's World Meeting of Families, which will be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), a Catholic, warmly invited Pope Francis to address Congress in a statement made in March 2014. However, House Resolution 440, which recognizes the pope's "inspirational statements and actions" and congratulates him on his election, was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee in December 2013 and has been languishing there ever since.

Out of the 221 co-sponsors of the resolution, a mere 19 are GOP members. A Republican supporter of the bill told The Hill that the lack of enthusiasm could be due to the belief that the pope is "too liberal," a perception drawn largely from his criticism of unfettered capitalism and trickle-down economics as well as his calls for a more equal distribution of wealth.

The Republican source told The Hill that some GOP members think Pope Francis is "sounding like [President] Obama. [The pope] talks about equality — he actually used the term 'trickle-down economics,' which is politically charged."

With the clock ticking on the legislative calendar, the writers of the resolution, Reps. John Larson (D-Connecticut) and Pete King (R-New York), sent a letter to Boehner on Friday to ask him to put it to a vote.

"To my knowledge this would be an historic first. I ask that you take a look at a bipartisan resolution introduced by Representative Peter King and myself, acknowledging the first Pope from the Americas ... it is my sincere hope that you will consider this resolution for the suspension calendar for a vote," Larson wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.

Boehner's March invitation to the pope said in part:

His tireless call for the protection of the most vulnerable among us—the ailing, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the impoverished, the unborn—has awakened hearts on every continent.

His social teachings, rooted in 'the joy of the gospel,' have prompted careful reflection and vigorous dialogue among people of all ideologies and religious views in the United States and throughout a rapidly changing world, particularly among those who champion human dignity, freedom, and social justice.

These principles are among the fundamentals of the American Idea. And though our nation sometimes fails to live up to these principles, at our best we give them new life as we seek the common good. Many in the United States believe these principles are undermined by 'crony capitalism' and the ongoing centralization of political power in the institutions of our federal government, which threaten to disrupt the delicate balance between the twin virtues of subsidiarity and solidarity.

According to The Hill, the resolution's supporters see it as a more formal acknowledgment of Pope Francis that goes beyond the open invitation originally extended. "The Speaker's invited him to speak, it would give it more significance if there was an actual official resolution about it," said King.

[Razgovory]

The GOP was never that keen on Catholics in the first place.  You should see some of the shit they put out in 1928.

[The Brain]

The GOP doesn't like the Anti-Christ?

[derspiess]

The GOP was never that keen on Catholics in the first place.  You should see some of the shit they put out in 1928.

  There you go bringing up 1928 again.

[Valmy]

I am pretty sure the current GOP regards 1928 as the key year the modern conservatism was...oh wait that was 1964?  Nevermind.

[Iormlund]

He is too liberal for the GOP.

[merithyn]

He's the first Christian church leader that I've heard espousing to actually live as Jesus suggested. So the fact that there are a lot of hard-line "Christian" conservatives who balk at the idea of honoring him is funny.

derspeiss, what's your family's thoughts on this? The wife is Catholic, as I recall?

[CountDeMoney]

The GOP was never that keen on Catholics in the first place.  You should see some of the shit they put out in 1928 1960.

[The Minsky Moment]

Congress should really just keep out of this.
Non binding resolutions are pointless and silly to begin with and should be kept to a minimum.
Either the Pope can be viewed as a leader of a particular religious group, in which case Congress really shouldn't be conferring endorsements, or his is a leader of a foreign state (Vatican) in which case this is starting to infringe into the usual purview of the Executive.

Talking about what Jesus intended is sort of pointless because whatever the historical Jesus taught or thought, he wasn't thinking about what people 2000 years in the future in a global technological society would be doing.  He didn't intend to found an permanent enduring bureaucracy; the general consensus among the historians who have looked at the issue is that he thought and taught that the "end of the world" in some sense was nigh.

[The Brain]

Jesus intended us to laugh so he gave us Wings.

[derspiess]

derspeiss, what's your family's thoughts on this? The wife is Catholic, as I recall?

My lovely wife is a non-practicing Catholic.  She was pretty proud of the fact that an Argentine dude got to be pope but hasn't paid much attention since.  For my in-laws and Argie friends it's something they remain proud of, but they aren't necessarily hanging on every word he says as are his other supporters (and detractors).

She's not big on discussing religious or political issues but if you had to drag it out of her she'd probably not be too fond of the social justice thing in terms of government policy.  As little regard as she has for politics, she's pretty hardcore libertarian on most items.

As for me I'm still mostly positive on Francis.  He seems like a genuinely nice guy and humble almost to a fault.  I disagree with his criticism of capitalism but he's not saying anything other popes haven't said before.  I don't think there's much to be gained by badmouthing him.

[Razgovory]

I am pretty sure the current GOP regards 1928 as the key year the modern conservatism was...oh wait that was 1964?  Nevermind.

Last President before the New Deal?  Yep I think that might fit.

[Razgovory]

She's not big on discussing religious or political issues but if you had to drag it out of her she'd probably not be too fond of the social justice thing in terms of government policy.  As little regard as she has for politics, she's pretty hardcore libertarian on most items.

So she's a fascist?

[derspiess]

So she's a fascist?

Yes, but only a closeted one because the federal government had gone after fascism.  Or something.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Congress should really just keep out of this.
Non binding resolutions are pointless and silly to begin with and should be kept to a minimum.
Either the Pope can be viewed as a leader of a particular religious group, in which case Congress really shouldn't be conferring endorsements, or his is a leader of a foreign state (Vatican) in which case this is starting to infringe into the usual purview of the Executive.

Talking about what Jesus intended is sort of pointless because whatever the historical Jesus taught or thought, he wasn't thinking about what people 2000 years in the future in a global technological society would be doing.  He didn't intend to found an permanent enduring bureaucracy; the general consensus among the historians who have looked at the issue is that he thought and taught that the "end of the world" in some sense was nigh.

I don't think we need a Christkiller's opinion on Christ, thanks.