I’m not Catholic. I’m not even really a Protestant, although that’s my faith tradition and the worldview I grew up with. I’m also a philosophy major who grappled with these issues and studied the history of the schism within Christianity quite carefully, so my decision not to follow the pope or his church is an intellectual decision as well as a birthright. But I write about politics, not religion, and I am not interested in persuading other people to adopt my point of view about spiritual matters. When it comes to Pope Francis, I’m just glad that he seems more sympathetic to how I view the secular world than his immediate predecessors. He’s not a hero to me, but I’m grateful that he seems to be showing some solid moral leadership in a few areas which is backed up by solid scientific guidance.
Overall, I agree with Suzy Khimm at The New Republic that progressives should think twice before using Pope Francis as a political cudgel against their enemies. She’s correct to highlight the hypocrisy in doing this after years of complaining about things like pro-choice politicians being denied communion.
She’s also correct to point out that we may set a precedent we don’t like, because as enjoyable as this turnabout in the Vatican seems right now, it could change tomorrow. Or, another religious leader could get invited to address Congress who has a message that we won’t like.
More than anything, though, progressives ought to strongly consider maintaining some internal consistency about whether public policy should or should not be seriously influenced by the opinions of religions leaders.
There are no doubt many political points to score during this papal visit, and it’s very tempting to serve conservatives the same putrid dish they’ve been serving us ever since Pope John Paul II became their hero in the mid-1970’s.
Politics ain’t beanbag and I don’t begrudge a little hypocrisy every once in a while in the service of the cause, but it’s a bad practice in general and should be kept to a minimum. It’s one thing to call the filibuster good when you need it and a horror when you don’t, but it’s another to not be clear about where you stand on politicians getting bossed around by the pope and his bishops.
In this sense, it doesn’t matter whether this pope is good or bad, or better or worse than previous popes. Just because he’s right about the moral urgency of climate change, for example, doesn’t mean it’s right to tell Catholic Republicans that they ought to follow the teachings of the Church. Catholic Republicans ought to follow the guidance they get from their scientific constituents who are plenty capable of explaining the causes and challenges of climate change without it being tied in any way to someone’s faith.
Now, some people might argue that climate change is such an urgent issue, and Republican opposition to doing anything about it is so entrenched and irrational, that any and all devices should be exploited to make progress. I understand that. I can see the logic there.
But it’s not like Catholic Republicans need you and me to tell them what the pope has told them himself. Let them listen to him or not, as their conscience dictates. That’s all we ask on the abortion question, after all.
I basically agree with you, but I think it’s perfectly legit to take the occasion to point out that the science supports him. So we’re with him on this, not because he has any particular authority to talk about this (or any issue, for that matter), but because he happens to be right. As an atheist, I think that 90% of what he believes is total bullshit, and that his status and claims to authority are totally illegitimate and nonsensical, but when he bases an opinion on evidence he’s doing what’s right. (If he did that consistently, of course, he would resign his office.)
Bingo
Who cares who addresses Congress? I don’t see this as a church and state issue. There are lots of repugnant churches, religions and religious leaders but I really don’t think making an address to Congress is going to affect the public life of the US.
I’m assuming, of course, that its not an everyday thing, like opening the congressional session with a prayer … oh wait, never mind.
Expect the Pope to talk about four things during his visit:
— The global economy of exclusivity which pits the few against the many and man against man. Rising tides do not raise those without boats. It is immoral.
— The culture of disposal. It is raping the planet. It is creating a classic “tragedy of the commons”. It is immoral.
— Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comfortable (with shame if they are not giving enough back). This is moral.
— Stop imposing western and largely liberal morals as a condition of giving aid to developed nations. Giving aid to the needy is moral imperative enough. It should be given selflessly. Morals are the most personal of choices and should be adopted by attraction, not promotion or coercion.
Whether you believe a higher power or God gave humans the ability to reason and feel compassion or you think it is simply a logical consequence of evolutionary pressure, reason and compassion is still something that comes before and outside of each of us. These are spiritual matters that have be described as part of the human condition for thousands of years and across all cultures.
I have no quarrel with the Pope’s conclusions regardless of how he came to them. His only skin in the game is to save souls. As my brother’s keeper, ultimately that is all I am interested in as well, even if I may have a different concept of the soul.
If his visit highlights that some people in our society are driven by fear, hate and a willful lack of enlightenment, so be it. Many more will be influenced positively.
Error… I mean “undeveloped nations”
We’ll see if he has anything to say about abortion and marriage.
BTW, are you somebody’s brother?
I have two brothers sharing a mother with me. One had a dog named Boo. 🙂
I am a happier and better person if every moment of every day to the best of my ability I have consideration for the others around me. That fact seems to have come before and outside of me.
Under your four points, I would not be surprised at all to see Pope Francis frame the issue of abortion under the culture of disposal.
Under the last point, will Pope Francis make the obvious point that political grandstanding and draconian laws about abortion do not actually reduce the number of abortions?
All four of these give GOP politicians and the Democrats who emulate them some degree of heartburn.
In the past he has contained his message on disposal to environmental issues. Disposal is simply not sustainable and immorally places burdens on future generations.
Abortion is considered a deeply personal and moral choice. It is a sin before one’s own maker. As such it is by definition not a political or policy issue. And as such it should not be imposed as a precondition for aid by western developed nations. Same for gay marriage. You and I may not like it and can point to evidence that banning abortions can make abortion more likely, but for the Pope and Catholics that is beside the point.
Frankly, I’m ok with that because of how they come to their conclusion. As soon as others politicize the topic and want to criminalize things like abortion then the discussion has fallen off the rails.
Very well said. Thank you.
While the Pope may be doing and saying things that many here find acceptable, it’s important to remember that
He’s strong and vigorous now. He probably will serve another 10 years. His views may change. But counting on Francis to do specific things may not be a sensible strategy.
Like the Liberty U folks, the defining political issue for 90% of Republican Catholics is abortion. As long as Pope Francis remains with them on that issue, there’s no contradiction between their faith and political affiliation. They will no more listen to this Pope on other issues than they did to John Paul II’s anti-war messages.
Liberal Catholics appreciate Francis because he says some things that they’ve believed for some time. Always nice when an authority figure affirms one’s beliefs.
The three Catholic POTUS candidates, Christie, Jeb?, and Santorum, have already rejected anything Francis has to say on climate change and income inequality. As will all the GOP members of Congress regardless of their religious affiliation.
It’s always okay for a politician to cite the moral teachings of any religious leader, but that’s best kept within the framework of basic morality which doesn’t vary much among the world’s largest religions and secular humanism.
Marie, a lot of pro-life Catholics are in other respects more or less liberal Democrats. I think they understand the church/state thing, unlike some of their coreligionists.
Christie, Jeb and Santorum reject Francis’s message because they are devout Republicans. I’m sure they think that makes them more Catholic than the Pope.
The anti-abortion Republican Catholics are NOT pro-life nor socially liberal. They loathe taxes and women and children that receive welfare assistance as much as they loathe abortion.
Well, that is absolutely true, but they do love to call themselves “pro-life.” I was referring to anti-abortion Democratic Catholics.
I limit my usage of “anti-abortionist” to those that seek to impose their personal belief, either for religious or personal moral reasons, on others through legislative, judicial, or activist means. We all carry around grab-bags of beliefs and personal moral prohibitions, but few of them are proper or rational issues for state control or regulation.
I tend to think of it as the perfect opportunity to call out Republican hypocrisy. i.e. you claimed moral authority from past conservative popes, now you have one that disagrees with you and you’re ignoring or fighting with him, what does this say about you actual religious values, as opposed to the ones you’ve been claiming to have?
Right, but what else is new?
What is most important is to remember the differential treatment of the Rev. Gov. Michael Huckabee and Congressman Father Robert Drinan.
And the Cardinals and Archbishops who effectively excommunicated (what else does not give communion mean) John Kerry during the 2004 campaign.
Providing a moral stance that encompasses the social as well as the personal realms is one thing. Interfering with the US political process is another. There has been a long history of conflation of these both by Protestants and Catholics. And a long history of dodging the separation of church and states by using the Tenth Amendment and a states rights argument – why Massachusetts Congregationalism was the last to be disestablished and that in 1833.
Restoring religious discourse over social policy again would be a major step forward to restoring the voice of all Christians and dampening the salience of the haters. And that would restore the ability to talk about social policy in politics again outside of the neoliberal consensus.
I agree with you, Booman. To view the pope solely as a “political cudgel” is, among other things, extremely superficial. I get the impression that people who see him that way neither know nor care where he is coming from, it’s just expedient.
Of course, to many on the Right, there is NO distinction between religion and politics; while to many on the Left, religion is a kind of taboo.
I’m not a Catholic or even a Christian, but I admire this pope, just as (and for many of the same reasons) I admire Bernie Sanders, who, though a politician, and Jewish, is saying a lot of the same things.
Anybody who tells truth to power, on matters of vital importance, in a big and deeply coherent way and for the right reasons, is somebody I admire. ESPECIALLY when they are in a position of influence. It’s rare enough these days. I don’t have to agree with them about everything.
And no, it’s not science, it’s a theology that accepts science as a valid method of investigating nature, unlike some others I could name. That the pope’s positions are taken on theological grounds evokes suspicion and skepticism among many. But to me it simply demonstrates that there are very strong values in that theology, even though I’m far from agreeing with all of it. Just as I know for a fact that Bernie’s positions, however religious he may or may not be, come from deep-rooted cultural-religious values.
I get your point about avoiding religion, because it’s a double edged blade.
But we should absolutely make a moral case for liberal policies. Relying on self-interest isn’t moving the rubes. But if you create a compelling moral vision of saving the planet for your grandkids (for instance) that’s an easier sell than getting them to see past the weather.
And it happens that now religion and morality jump together.
There is no hypocrisy in using someone else’s source of authority against them while rejecting that source of authority for yourself. Something along the lines of, “Didn’t you say that the pope is the moral authority a few years ago? Well, the pope now says…” To use chess terms it forks them – they either have to move to your position on the issue or they have to reject what they quoted as a source of authority, meaning they have to craft an entirely different argument since the basis of their argument is no longer valid according to none other than themselves…
I’m more about beating them over the head for saying that climate change and reigning in capitalism are ‘politics’ but abortion and marriage are non political theology.