OK, well, a little context. The Pope's remarks include an "if" after the statement, to qualify the remark. Not especially effective, as it still stands for a readiness to "judge" should the conditions be fulfilled. But hey, if a Pope can't decide who is or is not a Christian (at least who is a part of the One visible Church of Christ), then who can?
But recall, he is the one who asked "Who am I to judge?". Now if Trump were committing or advocating sodomy, no judgement. Advocating a border fence, well...
Trump responded, as you knew he would. Though I doubt he could say "good morning" without a certain amount of bombast, he gives the Pope an out in the end, attributing the statements to him having been manipulated by others. That may or may not be true.
The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.
For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.
I don't care to speak to the first two paragraphs in light of the nature of this blog. But, the last paragraph compels. Again, for my more "liberal" readers, I have no problem with any Pope using his authority to declare someone outside the Church-- there is a procedure, there is a name, there is recourse for the sinner-- no, what I am talking about here is the (public, no less) labeling of someone as a "non-Christian" for benefit of the press or to advance a political agenda. His Holiness hasn't done that for public sodomites or adulterers or supporters of infanticide. The real question is "Why now?"