re: Why do people care about the Popes political views

I'd bet he doesn't go to mass regularly if he thinks the Church is dying. A good way to think about the Pope is a father (dad). He's even called father. If my dad tells me to do something, I follow his lead because I trust that he has my best interest at heart. That doesn't mean I never disagree with him or challenge him. I can still respect him without agreeing with him. For infallibility and the Pope, we trust that the Pope has our best interest at heart, but he is a man like any of us. He sins and is wrong on things. We respect our father without having to agree with every position he takes. That is the official position of the Church. You say you know what the Church's stance on papal infallibility but want to conveniently slip it in their that we have to agree with his statement on the border or war. We don't. He isn't speaking ex cathedra.

quote:

---

Yes, and Jesus did not preach to governments, political authorities or institutions. His message is for humans with souls. A Pope should also only message individuals. God did not direct his message to the Roman Empire, he directed it to an individual, Constantine.

---

That argument kind of collapses under its own weight once you bring up Constantine the Great.

If the claim is that Christ’s message is only for private individuals and never for rulers or institutions, then why is the one example you cite…the Roman Emperor himself?

Constantine wasn’t just “an individual with a soul” in the abstract—he was the head of the Roman state, and his conversion had massive public, legal, and institutional consequences (see the Edict of Milan). Catholicism went from persecuted to protected because a ruler responded to the Gospel as a ruler.

So you can’t have it both ways:
1) Either rulers are outside the scope of the Gospel, in which case Constantine is irrelevant; or
2) Rulers are accountable to the Gospel, in which case the Church absolutely can speak to governments and public life

Also, the premise itself is shaky. Christ didn’t avoid political authority:
1) He directly addressed Pontius Pilate about truth and kingship (John 18:33–37)
2) He spoke about Caesar and civic obligations (Matthew 22:21)
3) And His Church, from the beginning, engaged the public order (see St. Paul the Apostle appealing to Roman law and authority)

Bottom line: Christianity is directed to persons, yes—but persons don’t stop being moral agents when they hold office. A ruler is still accountable to God in how he governs, not just in his private life.

So saying “a Pope should only message individuals” ignores both history and basic logic. The Church speaks to souls—including the souls of those running nations.

quote:

---

by canon law, you are just not correct.

---

You should reread your own post. Views on border security and strategy on war in Iran is not Catholic doctrine, nor official teaching on morals and faith. You can treat immigrants with dignity without agreeing to allow anyone to come into the country. The Pope's comments are moral or pastoral judgements, not doctrinal.

quote:

---

Now, your opinion is the popularly stated one, and its the one that modern catholic online apologists like to promote, because their goal is not to be truthful about what the Catholic Church officially teaches but rather to get evangelicals to convert, because evangelicals are the ones that actually evangelize and bring in new converts. The other problem is most Catholics dont really know what the Catholic Church teaches. The ones who do know are not honest about it and the rest dont know any better

---

It's a popular argument because it's the correct teaching of the Church. Your problem is YOU don't understand the Catholic Church teaches.

I don’t

Because he is a total hypocrite who wants to play with the big boys but isn't up to taking the knocks. Whine, whine! Surely there is some corrupt parish somewhere or a flock of pedophile priests who need attention.

He needs to stay in his lane!

quote:

---

Yes. But government has no soul.

God's appeal to Constantine was to Constantine personally.

---

Allow me to break this down for you:

That line sounds clever, but it collapses the moment you remember what the Church actually teaches about authority.

Start here: yes—individual rulers have souls. But it does not follow that their exercise of authority is somehow spiritually neutral or sealed off from God.

1. Authority itself is accountable to God—not just the man holding it.

Scripture doesn’t treat government like a soulless machine operating outside morality:
- “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” — Romans 13:1
- “For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.” — Romans 13:4

Those passages say that rulers/government authorities are “God’s servants” (d???????) for justice—not private individuals on a personal spirituality track.

If authority is instituted by God, then its exercise is morally judged by Him. You don’t get to hide behind “the state has no soul” while wielding power that affects millions of souls.

2. The Church has always addressed rulers as rulers.

The Church didn’t just whisper into ears—it corrected, guided, and sometimes rebuked political authority in its public capacity:
- Edict of Milan — Constantine the Great didn’t just “personally convert.” He used imperial authority to end persecution of Christians across the empire. That’s not private piety—that’s governance ordered (however imperfectly) toward justice.
- Ambrose of Milan vs. Theodosius I — Ambrose barred him from Communion after a massacre until he repented as emperor. Why? Because his public acts as ruler were morally culpable before God.

So no—the Church doesn’t treat political power like a spiritually irrelevant zone.

3. “Government has no soul” is a dodge.

Of course a state isn’t a human being imbued with a soul. That’s obvious—and irrelevant.

A corporation doesn’t have a soul either.

That doesn’t mean its actions are morally neutral or beyond judgment.

Government is an instrument wielded by persons. Its laws and actions are moral acts because they are chosen by moral agents.

So when the Church speaks to “nations,” she’s doing exactly what Christ commanded: forming consciences at every level where human decisions affect salvation.

4. Christ’s kingship isn’t limited to private life.

If Christ is Lord only of private conscience, He’s not really Lord.

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’” — Matthew 28:18

“All authority” includes political authority.

The idea that rulers can wall off their public decisions from Christ is basically a baptized version of secularism.

quote:

---

The idea that rulers can wall off their public decisions from Christ is basically a baptized version of secularism.

---

That's not the idea.

The idea is that if the leader has personally internalized Christ it will spill over into his decisions as a leader.

Any system of government whether it be a communist dictatorship, monarchy, or representative republic will instantly be made better simply by its leaders being good and moral individuals.

quote:

---

I'd bet he doesn't go to mass regularly if he thinks the Church is dying. A good way to think about the Pope is a father (dad). He's even called father. If my dad tells me to do something, I follow his lead because I trust that he has my best interest at heart. That doesn't mean I never disagree with him or challenge him. I can still respect him without agreeing with him. For infallibility and the Pope, we trust that the Pope has our best interest at heart, but he is a man like any of us. He sins and is wrong on things. We respect our father without having to agree with every position he takes. That is the official position of the Church. You say you know what the Church's stance on papal infallibility but want to conveniently slip it in their that we have to agree with his statement on the border or war. We don't. He isn't speaking ex cathedra.

---

I won't get into the ex cathedra doctrine again, as I've already spoken about that.

My point was that you and others claim that the Pope is like a father that should be followed but you can disagree with, and yet what I see in practice are a lot of self-proclaimed Catholics disrespecting and dishonoring the Pope as if he's more like a mean step-father that you only have to obey in special cases, and you don't really need to even say good things about.

quote:

---

My point was that you and others claim that the Pope is like a father that should be followed but you can disagree with, and yet what I see in practice are a lot of self-proclaimed Catholics disrespecting and dishonoring the Pope as if he's more like a mean step-father that you only have to obey in special cases, and you don't really need to even say good things about.

---

That's fair enough. If that's the case, then they are acting contrary to the Church's teachings and should correct their actions. It doesn't mean the Church's teachings are wrong. Same with abusive priests. They are acting in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church. Their actions don't mean the Church's teachings are wrong, it means the priest's actions are wrong.