If
Donald Trump laps the field in South Carolina, he will have Pope Francis to
thank. On the very eve of the debate in the Palmetto State, the Pontiff opined
that it is better to build bridges than walls, and that people who are obsessed
with building walls aren’t very Christian.
Bingo!
The Donald is in command of another news cycle.
I
have no doubt that Phil Pullella, the Reuters reporter who asked Pope Francis
the question that started the fuss, was hell bent on hurting the Trump
campaign. Here is what he tweeted:
“POPE SAYS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TRUMP IS "NOT
CHRISTIAN" BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWS ON IMMIGRATION” Bit of an exaggeration, I’d say.
Here is the transcript of the interview:
Phil
Pullella, Reuters: Today, you
spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of
the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for
the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said
that you are a political man and he even said that you are a pawn, an
instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if
he’s elected, he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border. He
wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etcetera. I
would like to ask you, what do you think of these accusations against you and
if a North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?
Pope
Francis: Thank God he
said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal
politicus.' At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well,
maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the
people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they
may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.
As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I
am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian
if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and
in this I give the benefit of the doubt.
I
wrote a blog about Mr. Trump’s wall last September. I said that walls are for
prisons and dictators. Obviously, we are talking here about images, not real
walls. My house has walls and so does my church. They’re good things. They hold
up the roof.
The
issue here is the symbolism of walls. A wall suggests separation. A wall
divides the ins from the outs. As a symbol, a wall is the exact opposite of the
symbolism associated with the Statue of Liberty.
The
political impact of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico is to convince the
people who are concerned about illegal immigration that the candidate who wants
to build a wall really wants to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
Whether a wall would actually keep many people out is doubtful. Ladders are cheaper than bulldozers, and tunnels are easier to build
than walls. Human ingenuity being what it is, where there is a will, there is a
way. The Berlin wall didn’t keep everyone in East Germany, even when bolstered
by machine guns.
And
there are lots of people on this side of the border who welcome the illegals;
help them, house them, hire them.
From
a political standpoint, it doesn’t matter. By the time the wall is built and
experience tells us it doesn’t work, the folks who got elected by promising to
build it will have retired.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.