Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s Wrong with the George Will Column Excoriating the Pope?
Begin with the title: “Pope Francis’ fact-free flamboyance.“
The Pope is fact free? He knows nothing? He’s flamboyant? How so? The article doesn’t tell us. It evidently relies for its persuasiveness on anti-Catholic or anti-papal prejudices and presuppositions.
The first paragraph piles on the slurs. The Pope comes to the US “trailing clouds of sanctimony.”
With a convert’s indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary.
What those “demonstrably false and deeply reactionary” ideas of the Pope’s are, we aren’t informed. The first quote Will offers to substantiate his charges is an example not of the Pope’s ideas or “policy prescriptions,” but rather his “wooly sentiments” and “vacuity,” viz., “People occasionally forgive, but nature never does.”
Let him who has never said anything wooly or vacuous cast the first stone.
Next he quotes the Pope committing hyperbole.
And the Earth is becoming “an immense pile of filth”?
Only Will exaggerates a bit (not a great tactic for someone chastising someone else for hyperbole). What the Pope actually said (in a Tweet, where hyperbole is not unknown) is somewhat more modest and defensible: “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.”
Call me hyperbolic, but I’ve uttered the same cri de coeur myself many and many a time driving through urban sprawl or the endless strip malls of modernity. You don’t have to be a leftish environmentalist wacko to see and suffer from the fact that we are trashing nature left and right — especially the parts of it where most of the poor live out their whole lives. Rich people can at least vacation in the mountains or at the shore. The poor aren’t so lucky. (Try searching Google images for pictures of the slums of Buenos Aires. Bergoglio used to travel there regularly to say Mass because the people there couldn’t afford transportation to the cathedral.)
Read the Letters from Lake Como of Romano Guardini (one of Francis’s favorite authors), and you’ll realize that the pain and sorrow the Pope is expressing goes far deeper than mere sentiment, never mind political fashion. It has everything to do with a profound concern for the good of man, who urgently needs intimate contact with the beauty of nature for his happiness and spiritual well being.
The next direct quote we get is of the Pope offering an important caveat: “The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions.” Will apparently interprets this as rank hypocrisy, while I take it as characteristic modesty and basic catechesis. If the science on which the Pope bases, say, his call for “international collective action” on climate change turns out to be false, then forget that. His real concern isn’t with policy prescription, but with fundamental moral attitudes.
Consider this parallel. When Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae was issued in 1968, the scientific consensus of the day indicated that overpopulation was a major concern. Hence the encyclical mentions worry about overpopulation as a valid reason a couple might choose to limit their family size. It turns out (surprise!) that the scientific consensus was wrong. We’re in more danger from demographic implosion than a population explosion. Has the encyclical thereby been discredited? No. The science has been, but not the moral thrust of the papal teaching.
Then Will flings another gratuitous and ill-informed smear: “The church that thought it was settled science that Galileo was heretical.” Never mind that heresy is determined canonically, not scientifically. And never mind that the Church has since apologized for the error (albeit belatedly), proving that her temporal judgments are subject to revision.
Then comes more sneering:
Francis deplores “compulsive consumerism,” a sin to which the 1.3 billion persons without even electricity can only aspire. He leaves the Vatican to jet around praising subsistence farming, a romance best enjoyed from 30,000 feet above the realities that such farmers yearn to escape.
The poor aspire to “compulsive consumerism?” I thought they wanted a decent standard of living. The Pope “jets around” — like Al Gore, perhaps — living a life of luxury and moral preening? Is that a just description of this Pope?
Please note, all you critics who think the Pope is a leftist: “Compulsive consumerism” is not a synonym for “free markets” (which the Church considers the best means of equitable wealth distribution), just as “crony capitalism” is not a synonym for “capitalism.” It’s possible to condemn one without condemning the other. Note this too: material poverty is not the only kind of poverty; it’s possible for a person or a people to gain economically and lose spiritually at the same time. This is a real danger of the industrial revolution and global markets, as everyone who has suffered in the epidemic of depression and alienation in our society knows existentially.
The Pope is not wrong to point to the moral hazards of our system; it’s what moral leaders do. Solzhenitsyn did the same, you may recall. So did John Paul II and Benedict XVI. So did Jesus, when he said, “Man does not live by bread alone.” To point out the moral hazards of capitalism is not to endorse socialism, which has more and worse hazards of its own (all duly noted in the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church.)
Next we get two paragraphs extolling the benefits of fossil fuels without any evidence whatsoever to indicate that the Pope opposes them.
Then Will writes: “Francis grew up around the rancid political culture of Peronist populism” — as if to suggest that the Pope approves of the system he grew up in, when, in fact, he was a staunch critic of it (and the US interventions that kept its elite in power and riches, while its masses languished in poverty and misery).
Will’s sarcasm and anti-Catholic vitriol go on:
Francis jauntily makes his church congruent with the secular religion of “sustainability.” Because this is hostile to growth, it fits Francis’s seeming sympathy for medieval stasis, when his church ruled the roost, economic growth was essentially nonexistent and life expectancy was around 30.
Attention Mr. Will: The Pope can’t make the Church anything; the Church (following the ancient Judaism on which it’s founded) has always preached “sustainability,” i.e., responsible stewardship of the environment. Further, “economic growth” is as susceptible as environmentalism to being pursued with religious zeal, as if it were an absolute good. It’s the kind of thing that happens when true religion is abandoned in favor of one false god or another.
The concluding paragraph too is pure, lying slur:
He stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies in which people and their desires are not problems but precious resources. Americans cannot simultaneously honor him and celebrate their nation’s premises.
I personally am in favor of the goods of modernity, rationality, science, free markets, and human creativity. (I just don’t worship them.) I believe with all my heart in the preciousness and dignity of each and every human being. (I’ve learned a lot about how it looks in the concrete by watching the Pope.) I also endorse the premises of the American founding, and, I honor this Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Anyone who says it is impossible to honor both the Pope and America’s founding principles is either ignorant or bigoted or both.
Published in Culture, General, Religion & Philosophy
I can’t wait to hear your parsing of the Pope’s speech to Congress.
That’s not quite my criticsism. Rather, it’s that Francis:
I don’t think it’s accurate or useful to describe Francis as a socialist, but I do think he shares a number of incorrect and dangerous beliefs with them on this particular front.
By the way, I should say that I found some parts of Laudato Si quite beautiful, particularly his description of the Eucharist in paragraph 236.
Francis wants to transform human hearts. He also wants to transform governments, and has repeatedly said so.
I agree that Francis is not a Marxist, but then I don’t really believe that Obama is in a terribly meaningful sense.
Do you believe that there is a particular policy of Obama’s that Francis would object to that marks Obama out as a disciple of Karl and thus clarifies the distinction?
I do not believe that the use of political power to achieve ends is restricted to Marxists. Many of my favorite conservative and pre-Marx politicians have attempted to do this.
I agree that the difference between the Communist and Social Democratic left is important, and am curious about how you see it.
I guess I read too much emotion into the cry from the heart.
That is quite right. It is the people who make capitalism and liberty an idol who have the most problems with Pope Francis. This excuse that the Pope’s words will harm the very people he is trying to help is false argument. It doesn’t justify their hysteria. They have had their idol attacked, that is their issue. People who have such idols cannot suffer any criticism. I said this at Peter’s post on Will’s article:
Will also trades in that old Enlightenment canard that the Middle Ages were a time of stasis, no economic growth, and was dominated by a smothering Church. In fact the medieval period was one of remarkable innovation without which the modern world wouldn’t have happened. Among many other things, the middle ages saw the invention of the heavy plow and horse collar that made agriculture much more efficient and a population increase possible, the university, eye glasses, finance, the separation of church and state, clocks, the stirrup, the compass, etc., etc.
It’s always the people who claim to be most progressive and scientific who cling to the oldest myths about the past.
Katievs,
I know you feel deeply about this subject and I have not read about this enough to form an opinion.
I wished that you didn’t write that there were only three choices: “ignorant, bigoted, or both.” People as you wrote about the earlier science can be wrong. They can have the best of intentions and like everyone and still not get it.
Katie, can a person disagree with the Pope in the normal way we disagree with political leaders? Does the disagreement need to be deferential? (There is no heat on these questions. I just wonder if it is possible.)
Can’t agree. It isn’t necessary to idolize capitalism and liberty to believe that what Pope Francis advocates in the way of collective action/universal agreements (presumably by international bodies such as the UN) would be harmful to the people he intends to help.
Let’s argue in good faith here. Francis and his critics both have good intentions. One or the other is misguided in their application.
I happen to agree with the critics that what the third world needs to alleviate the (material) plight of the poor is more of what (good) free enterprise capitalism has to offer: rule of law, property rights, cheap, abundant, dense energy (fossil fuels), and, by all means, air conditioning.
Almost no one would find Pope Francis controversial if he was simply “critiquing greed, rapaciousness, exploitation, egotism, and indifference toward the poor.” All indications are he takes the erroneous “limited pie” social-democrat view of economics, and worse, that he’s shut off (perhaps unwittingly) from other opposing views of free markets as the opportunity for people to participate in God’s creative enterprise.
This doesn’t make Francis a bad person. It means he’s wrong on matters of economic prudence.
James, I wasn’t being that generous. Katie insists on debate in good faith where Her faith is concerned, but has no issue rudely insulting those that do not share her views.
I am not sure who has claimed that, but for someone so self righteous about treating Your faith, and please be assured it is Yours and not universal, with the utmost respect you have some nerve to use such derogatory language.
I shouldn’t be shocked considering your repeated wonton denial of Pope Francis promotion of leftist ideology.
Please feel free to plead for more citations. Your willful ignorance of all previous citations from the Vatican not withstanding.
I agree the Pope isn’t socialist, he is a Marxist.
I do not agree that there is a “Christian idea of wealth-distribution”, but respect what I think is your intent with the phrase and yes it is sharing.
I hope the Pope is not opposed to sharing, but extolling he virtues of the state conducting wealth distribution to the U.N. is not sharing. It is promoting coercion.
Majestyk: I’ll repeat what I said after I heard you on Flyover Country – I disagree with a lot of what you say but respect the way you present your arguments and have even been convinced by some of what you say on how I view the Pope and my faith.
However, when you break out your lame “decoder / excuse ring” ace-in-the-hole which you have done more than once on these papal threads, I assume that you are arguing from hate of the Church rather than from reason.
C’mon man – you can do better than that
I was going to answer that question with something sarcastic but instead will say that I think you did a good job of critiquing Mr. Will’s column and I admire the way you defend the papacy and the Church.
For those who want to honor a Pope and America’s founding:
Pope Benedict XVI’s 2008 address at the welcome ceremony at the White House:
George Will is a Protestant. Why on earth should he have to tiptoe his way through Francis’ statements on this matter? The Pope should exercise more caution in his words, especially given the tremendous slaughter Leftism and totalitarianism have wrought on civilization in our time.
I think the Church was blessed in its selection of the last two Popes. This time, not so much.
I’m not Catholic but most the people I love are so I read what they tell me to read, including Weigel on John Paul, Ratzinger on Christianity and the gospels. These men were intellectual and historical giants. Pope Francis isn’t. The leftist media clearly tried to distort some of his first comments so I figured a lot of what he was subsequently reported to have said was also taken out of context, exaggerated, poorly understood, but it keeps coming and getting worse, more distant from reality. I have a hard time agreeing with this attack on Will and I do not see it as anti Catholic. There are a lot of Catholics rightly puzzled by this Pope.
Not clear that Francis is clear on this. Glad that you ascribe him good intent, and I hope you are right, but Francis seems to judge the West by its worst excesses while judging the Left by its proclaimed “Good Intent” and ignoring the Left’s Gulags and reeducation camps.
Can’t we make a distinction here between when the Pope speaks ex cathedra and when he speaks as a man? Many of his opinions seem to be just that–his opinions–though there is certainly a spiritual dimension to much of what he says, and that is his purview. It is unfortunate that environmentalism has been taken over by the left. I consider myself an environmentalist, as most likely we all do, in that I care very much about being a good steward of the earth and all that lives therein, including humans. That is definitely a Christian value, found right there In the Beginning (Genesis). The climate change crowd has made many on the right somewhat knee jerk against anything that sounds like environmentalism, ironically alienating people who would support some of what they call for, though not to the ridiculous extremes they advocate in their more unsupported claims.
I will admit that I have sometimes wished the Pope were less vocal about the environment and more vocal about social issues, where I think he really does have authority to speak, but on the other hand, lefties tend to like him over the environmental and redistributionist stuff, which might make them a bit more amenable to what he says about social issues. Catholic social teaching about caring for the poor does seem to emphasize government action in this regard, though of course Catholic charities do a lot of good worldwide. I wish the church would have a more rigorous internal welfare program that took vigorous care of the poor on a parish level, emphasizing government welfare less. Perhaps they do and I am unaware. The church is very large, however, and in some parts of the world it would be very hard for them to cover the needs of all the poor in their parishes. Still, I think the more that charity is local and involves members sharing with the more needy among them, the better.
I agree with Katie that Will’s tone was unnecessarily strident and tone deaf. Someone suggested above that he is religious, but I don’t think he is, and lately I have thought that he is letting his animosity toward religion show.
Very important comment. The Pope’s exhortations have much impact outside the Catholic Church.
I respect Katie’s assertion that the Pope has left leaning tendencies, but isn’t a leftist.
I do not believe it is negotiable that leftists’ greatest enemy is Christianity and the individual liberty to practice one’s faith.
The Pope’s statements whether malicious or poorly made with good intentions arm and embolden leftists of all stripes. In effect the Pope is handing the enemies of the Church a cudgel to beat it with. In the process endangering all Christians or others who cherish individual liberty.
I love the Catholics on Ricochet, they are a steady and calming influence, but none should be shocked that those of us who are not are speaking forcefully with evidence against a man that intentionally or not is handing guns and chains to those who wish us all in shackles.
I think it is hard to make that distinction. He is addressed as Pope Francis and not Fr. Jorge Bergoglio for a reason.
From the time he ascended to the Papacy every
thingutterance is construed through the veil of the Church. Not unlike our own President.George Will is an atheist: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/George-Will-atheist-religion-God/2014/09/22/id/596249/
The above link was bad.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/George-Will-atheist-religion-God/2014/09/22/id/596249/
If those are your criticisms, then
1. They are far more modest than many here.
2. They are not incompatible with a faithful Catholic interpretation the Pope (provided they are not accompanied by dismissiveness and sneering). They are not far from my own views.
3. Being insufficiently aware of various aspects of a question not directly related to his competence is pretty normal for a Pope.
4. If it’s true (and I doubt it) that the Pope is unaware that many who promote capitalism are also concerned with the poor, it’s also true that many who promote capitalism (especially the kind the Pope opposes) are not, in truth, sincerely concerned with the poor. Those are the kind the Pope is addressing.
5. The main thing the Pope is doing, always, is calling for conversion of heart.
An addendum to my point 4 above: Many and many a conservative of our stripe who rails against the Pope will answer his urgent call that we open ourselves to the poor with words like this, “Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in the history of the world!”
And when they do, they show they haven’t understood him. They are thinking politically and economically, rather than morally and religiously.
Insofar as governing bodies are composed of human beings with hearts, he wants to transform them. He wants them to become more humane, more ethical, more person-centered. (There is nothing humane or ethical about Obama’s transformational mode or goals.)
The Pope staunchly opposes the left’s aggressions against life and marriage, which leave the individual helpless before state power.
I doubt he knows enough of the American system to be able to speak fruitfully to particular policies, but, being Catholic, he favors the principle of subsidiarity, which would involve, broadly, a devolution of power from the central state toward the local.
In that same sentence Jesus is also confirming the need for man to have bread. Today that bread is provided to the poor of the world through the copious use of fossil fuels.
Capitalism is moral.
Realistically, any person who is called of God is also still a person with human frailties. I have a feeling the Pope would be the first to admit this. I doubt he himself would always know the difference, but all of us need to remember it and cut him, and other religious leaders, some slack. They do far more good than bad in this world.
I don’t think this is true. Or rather, it may be true of some. But it’s also true that the Pope is disarming the left. (I’m not speaking of hardened professional leftists so much as of normal people who tend to fall in with the left.) By making them feel understood and valued, by sympathizing with many of their just concerns, he is surprising them; he is opening their hearts and minds toward him and toward the Church. They are (maybe for the first time in their lives) attracted, interested, and, hence drawing nearer to grace and truth.
And, as we know, coming closer to grace and truth means being freed from the error, envy and egotism that leftism needs to survive.
The staunched opponent of totalitarianism is the convinced Christian.
I haven’t even had time to read through all the comments, but must run to mass, and then other things, so it will be some hours before I can come back. Thanks for all the thoughtful engagement so far. Carry on.
Merina, you can’t have this both ways. If he wasn’t up to the task he had to time to say so.
I do not remember during Pope John Paul II’s or Pope Benedict’s reign there being distinction between them as Pope’s and as individuals.
With Pope Francis it seems all to convenient that when he emboldens leftist that is Fr. Bergoglio exercising free speech, but when he says something agreeable then he is Pope Francis with the full weight of the church.
When he put on the ring it didn’t come with an on/off switch.
Brent, you can have it both ways and you must. These are people called of God and human. I haven’t read all the statements of former Popes, but I’m pretty sure if I did I’d find some that were the Pope speaking as a man. This is true for leaders in my own church. If you think you can’t have it both ways, then it will be impossible to have human leaders called of God, which I am quite certain is not the case.