PopeWatch: Proclaiming Jesus

Sandro Magister brings us up to date on the Pope’s trip to Burma:


There was only one moment in which Jesus was named and his Gospel proclaimed, in the speeches on the first day of Pope Francis’s visit to Myanmar.

Only that the one who spoke these words was not the pope, but the Burmese state counsellor and foreign minister Aung San Su Kyi, who is of the Buddhist faith:

“Jesus himself offers a ‘manual’ for this strategy of peacemaking in the Sermon on the Mount. The eight Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:3-10) provide a portrait of the person we could describe as blessed, good and authentic. Blessed are the meek, Jesus tells us, the merciful and the peacemakers, those who are pure in heart, and those who hunger and thirst for justice.

“This is also a programme and a challenge for political and religious leaders, the heads of international institutions, and business and media executives: to apply the Beatitudes in the exercise of their respective responsibilities. It is a challenge to build up society, communities and businesses by acting as peacemakers. It is to show mercy by refusing to discard people, harm the environment, or seek to win at any cost.”

It is true that San Su Kyi took these words from the message of Francis for the world day of peace on January 1, 2017. But it is striking that the only one to mention the name of Jesus and to make his Gospel resonate should have been she, and not the pope.

The complete text of the speech by the Nobel peace laureate, delivered at the beginning of the meeting between Francis and the authorities and representatives of civil society, can be read on this other page Settimo Cielo:

> “Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount…”

While this is the speech delivered immediately afterward by Pope Francis, a speech that instead was completely “secular,” except for the final invocation upon those present of “the divine blessings of wisdom, strength and peace”:

“A peace based on respect for each ethnic group and its identity”


Go here to read the rest.

More to explorer


  1. “A peace based on respect for each ethnic group and its identity” To paraphrase Jordan Peterson: “Respect must be earned. It is not everybody gets a trophy day.” Reverence the dignity of the human being because he is made in the image of God, but “call no one father”.
    “A peace based on respect for each ethnic group and its identity” Pure and simple communism. “Groups” do not go to heaven. Individual persons go to heaven. What is the “identity” of a group without the individual persons who form the group? (and who gets to define the group? That is the information that is lacking in this absurdity.) Whoever said this has left TRUTH crucified.

  2. Did Pope Francis say Mass while in Burma? As “in persona Christi” in the Mass, Pope Francis proclaims Jesus Christ and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation “in persona Christi” The Holy Name of Jesus would be on Pope Francis’ lips if Pope Francis loved Jesus. Pope Francis would live Jesus
    Jesus was an environmentalist when He instructed His disciples to gather up the fragments of bread and fish after He fed 5 thousand men, not counting women and children, when He calmed the sea, when he refused to turn rocks into bread, when He washed the dust off His Apostles’ feet. In good conscience Jesus respected creation. In good conscience too, Jesus redeemed every human being.
    Jesus instituted His Church, the Catholic Church, a group of persons who must freely choose to be Catholic and belong to the Catholic Church. Respect must be given to persons who have earned respect for this is Justice, giving to each as he deserves,
    Jesus redeemed the human race as a group, an ethnic group of individual persons who need redemption. Jesus prayed “OUR FATHER”, Jesus did not pray “my father”
    Jesus did not say: “This is our body.” Jesus separated the lambs from the communists. In time and in eternity it is always the individual person who must freely choose to proclaim Jesus through an overabundance of love for Jesus.

  3. Aye. He speaks in NGOblather as a matter of course. What is the point of all the traveling (which wasn’t done prior to Paul VI)? Unlike John Paul II, he’s a lousy evangelist and says nothing anyone would want to read. And it’s not as if the Holy See is an expertly managed bureaucratic machine. (Though, come to think of it, he might by attending to it make it even more dysfunctional).

  4. “But it is striking that the only one to mention the name of Jesus and to make his Gospel resonate should have been she, and not the pope.”

    Who here is surprised?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: