Well, the Pope had another interview on the plane...here are the Pope's actual words
And then he spoke to congress here
I come from the school of, one means exactly what they say, unless it's absolutely 100% clear by context that something was intended as a joke, or what not. That is to say, people need to stand behind what they say, people are adults (in general) and if they need to clarify a point, they can make this point explicitly....taking that into account, consider what Our Holy Father actually said during his plane interview...my comments in red
Pope Francis: A cardinal friend of mine told me that a very concerned woman, very Catholic, went to him. A bit rigid (Rigid, something inflexible at least in physics, people can also be a bit inflexible too...but it's very possible that a person has strong stances on *insert whatever they want here* and is not willing to break them.) , but Catholic (Almost as if the Catholic is a qualification nearly, but at least he said this lady was Catholic). And she asked him if it was true that in the Bible, they spoke of an antichrist, and she explained it to him. And also in the Apocalypse, no? And, then, if it was true that an anti-pope, who is the antichrist, the anti-Pope. But why is she asking me this question, this cardinal asked me? “Because I’m sure that Pope Francis is the anti-pope,” she said. And why does she ask this, why does she have this idea? “It’s because he doesn’t wear red shoes. (Actions have consequences, actions lead to people thinking various things, even if not intentional on the part of the person doing the action..the red shoes are of course a symbol of martyrdom)” The reason for thinking if one is communist or isn’t communist. I’m sure that I haven't said anything more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church (Are specific positions on issues engraved in the social doctrine of the Church? That is to say, certainly we have the corporal works of mercy, but is there a monopoly on HOW these works of mercy are to be taken out? Of course not, this is why prudential judgement exists true?...Also very apparent, he does NOT remember necessary everything that comes out of his mouth). On another flight, a colleague asked me if I had reached out a hand to the popular movements and asked me, “But is the Church going to follow you?” I told him, “I’m the one following the Church.” And in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I believe (Of course belief is amongst the lowest of the orders, even the devil can believe, but that's besides the point, believing, and what actually happens, can on occasion be in opposition) that I never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the Church (So it's social doctrine that we must believe in man made global warming, it's social doctrine that we must take these specific steps? God help us all). Things can be explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression of being a little “to the left” (Understatement of the year, a little, no, far out about 600 ft in left field? Possibly more accurate), but it would be an error of explanation (Okay, fair enough, so your intention is not to the left, fair enough, but if you don't wish to be misunderstood, of course you need to be clearer). No, my doctrine on this, in Laudato si' (Oh dear), on economic imperialism, all of this, is the social doctrine of the Church (Again though, is there a possible confusion on this point on the application of particular principles of social doctrine and equating the two together? I'm not sure...The Church explicitly condemns Communism and Socialism, but makes some critiques on Capitalism as practiced in particular places, but to say that one absolutely must apply these principles in a specific way is more than likely wrong). And it if necessary, I’ll recite the creed. I am available to do that, eh. (Great, do so in Greek, but, you'll notice completely absent is how we go about doing specific social issues in the Church...but something tells me this is more or less a comment because he was annoyed rather than in true sincerity)
- To say necessarily that he was denying leftism is a bit much. Rather more or less, I tend to take him at his word, describing using the left as his thought process would be wrong, he's saying his intentions come from the social doctrine of the Church, (which do somewhat seem left to use political language), which is entirely different than saying a denial of leftism took place. Sometimes I think people read between the lines, when there's only white space between words :p....But it's certainly easy to see how people can interpret what he's actually saying as something else.
It's certainly okay to lean left of center to want to solve problems (One might be wrong of course), but there are legitimate issues where we can all disagree on how to solve problems....We're not supposed to be brainwashed minions that just recite an answer when available you know?
Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good (paraphrased from the CCC, fair enough, we should indeed seek the common good for all, and not just the select few), for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.
Our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War (Oh dear, no). This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions. On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers , but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12). (Well, any immigration should be done with discretion and prudence. We should first make sure these are not terrorists posing as refugees, and various background checks, a nation does have a right to protect its own borders)
I''ll upload the rest of my comments later...