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 am honestly flattered by that.
Allow me to revise and extend my remarks. In a prior thread I wrote (The drip Drip of Pope Francis) I think I explained why I regard the line of argument which goes like “You’re misinterpreting the pontiff’s language because he was speaking in an apostolic fashion” and then going on to perform a lengthy explanation of the theological merits of the undercarriage of the statement as being bogus. Public perception is different.
The reason that it is bogus is that the Pope, being an intelligent man knows several things: Catholic theology and who his audience is.
While it might be possible that the Pope is speaking from the first, I find it to be more likely that he’s speaking to the second. That’s a judgment which derives from my observation of human nature.
I may have been celebrating Alabama’s loss last night as well. :-O
Hi Katy: Good to have you back. To your comment: His critique of greed, rapaciousness, etc. is fine, but laying it at the feet of capitalism, which he’s doing, is not only wrong, it’s dangerously naive. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the only economic system ever devised that actually serves to minimize those failings, and is more attentive to the needs of the poor than any other. It has the added advantage of taking into account human nature, which no political, economic or religious system has ever been able to overcome.
I’ll grant him infallibility on matters of faith (I don’t have a dog in that fight), but when he begins to move into areas of economics, which he himself says he knows nothing about, then he must do so understanding that as a world figure, his words will be bent to the purposes the audience feels will advance its own agenda.
If he was just a guy sitting on a barstool saying what he’s been saying, he’d be branded a socialist in a heartbeat, and properly so. Being Pope doesn’t make him less so.
I was happy with the jabs and slams of Will’s piece. Anyone with influence — Pope or not — peddling what he’s peddling needs to be answered with passion and force.
This article reminds me of a spouse defending her husband’s affairs. Love the Pope for his position and for being a sweet kind man, albeit misguided. I feel that to deny he’s a radical progressive is incorrect.
As Katie says, with great power comes great responsibility. There is a very important difference between what our Holy Father says off-the-cuff and what he declares ex cathedra (formally, in unity with his fellow bishops, as the first among equals). But he is the foremost Christian celebrity. With fame comes influence and with that a responsibility to be careful with public statements and actions.
Media do heavily filter what we learn of Pope Francis. Even Catholic media must be selective for time. Not all criticisms of him are justified. But some are. We would not be loving of our neighbors if we did not hope to find agreement with their words as well. Love of one person, even the bishop of Rome, should not lessen love of another.
What’s needed here is balance. To be heeded by non-Catholics and non-Christians, a Catholic needs their trust. To gain that trust, one must be fair and charitable (to one’s opponents even more than to one’s allies, as is Christ’s way). We can best defend our beloved bishop by acknowledging his faults, so that our defense is understood to be considered and honest.
Pope Feancis wants what I want. We might disagree on how to deliver it, or to some extent if we can deliver it.
This is hardly a new debate and has been played out since the advent of Marx.
See – I knew you could do better.
BrentB67 makes a similar argument in comment #59:
You guys both make very good points.
I agree that he should speak much more carefully, because as is shown here on Ricochet, what he says on matters outside of faith and morals matters greatly – especially to non-Catholics.
Having said that, it is important to separate his pronouncements in order that the faithful not be scandalized. You have pointed out yourself how pitiful we are as Catholics as to how we actually live out our faith (contraception, etc., etc.).
Yes, it is tedious to always do this, and yes, I get that it drives you guys crazy. But as the Scriptures say: “Gird your loins”. The Holy Father will be with us for 3 days next week and I’m sure it will be a wild and crazy ride.
I look forward to your perceptions and commentary.
Scott, one thing I am guilty of is not expressing Christian’s hope for a successful Pope. Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically is enjoying a resurgence around the world in places like South Korea and China.
You do a very nice job of realizing that when a man is elected to lead a flock of 1B+ his global influence extends well beyond the 1B.
Francis has caused me some inner struggles, because, while I was willing like Katie to argue that he was misinterpreted or metaphrased, well, it just kept happening and only from one direction. Were I the Pope, I could comfortably state that America has been God’ s powerful instrument against poverty, corruption, fanaticism, the worship of men and governments, and the conflation of Caesar with God. I could argue that the people of capitalist countries are not merely fortunate, but honest, virtuous, and generous; that their wealth comes from an insistence that creation is good, that impartial law is the only man-made justice, that there is no righteous theft.
Instead I hear that the earth is dirtied by man, that some have it better than others, many of the slogans that have been used so often in the past to justify riot and tyranny. It’s no sin to use the same rhetoric employed by leftists, but it’s wise to remember that you have an audience, and that words have a historical context, a connotation. It’s unfair to insist that all Francis’s listeners be held to a standard similar to that of contract law or Scholastic philosophy. If Francis wishes to clarify his remarks, no one will deny him airtime, hours and days of it.
There are scientists promoting “white lies” and undermining their profession and the very concept of “good faith.” There are supposedly religious leaders promoting rape and murder as forms of worship. Why does Francis have no sweeping statements for them?
Just read on Fox Nation a quote of Pope Francis while making a speech to Bolivian workers “unfettered capitalism is the dung of the devil”.
Since “unfettered capitalism” or anything close to it doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, I’ve come to the conclusion that Lefties like Francis don’t like capitalism because it puts a spot light on socialism, the real world dung of the devil.
Exactly, WC. May I add, your observation is certainly how the pope is viewed by my leftist gay friends, born but not practicing Roman Catholics, who suddenly have a church leader they can love and feel attached to, which I find utterly sickening and have said so. Regular Americans are not interested in parsing encyclicals in search of hidden jewels of esoteric meanings buried in the Middle Ages. They see someone criticizing others on TV and in that media, us/them way that has come to characterize our culture, either grab hold to or (as in my case, even were I a believing Roman Catholic), wave him away.
So why does the Pope go before the UN Executive Council and ask them to use the power of the state to achieve his ends rather than voluntary persuasion of the human heart?
He is well suited for the latter and is exercising marxism in the former.
It completely mystifies me how we got a point where people act like George Will’s opinions on anything are absolutely dispositive.
Where does one start? I remember a Will column several years ago where he described the Catholic Church as “priest ridden.” At that time he was an Episcopalian and one might presume that he actually participated in the life of that church.
Now he describes himself as a “none” which means that he has no fixed religion and can be thought of as agnostic at best. Would I expect Will to have changed his mind on Catholicism having completely abandoned the practice of religion? No. Should he be expected to approve of the current pope? There is nothing in his past which would indicate such an approval, but there was expressed disapproval of the Catholic Church in the past. Nothing has changed for George Will in any meaningful way.
I, for one, don’t even think about that category. I like to see a forceful and articulate polemic that makes sense to me.
I don’t think everyone outside of a Catholic has to honor the Pope. Especially in America. As a Lutheran, I find this pope very different, in that he does get more involved in political and economic matters. I don’t think the mission of the church is to help the poor, although that is a good thing (it is temporal), I think it is to spread the gospel (eternal) and make believers of men.
I was thinking of Sir Frances Drake’s prayer.. “Disturb us Lord”. this pope disturbs me some.
I don’t agree with everything Pope Francis says, but now is not the best time for religious people to be criticizing each other in public, not when so many people are dying in the Middle East and Northern Africa. A united Western religious community could do something about that (I for one am entirely in favor of military action); a disunited one can do nothing.
Francis was on the wrong side in the Middle East. He strongly called for non-intervention, to the point of heresy. The fact that he later flip flopped and now maintains a strong contradiction of all violence being utterly wrong and evil, but also refraining from violence being utterly wrong and evil, does not absolve him from his chunk of responsibility for the refugees and the bloodshed. So far, he has been among the strongest assets in Putin and Assad’s arsenal.
It is in part because of the gravity of the moment that we cannot allow his perversion of the Christian faith to go without response.
I ask this question as a JV Catholic:
Isn’t electing a Franciscan Pope like electing a professional social worker President? In other words, are you just asking for trouble in that the person probably is just not cut out for the responsibilities of the job (no matter how nice or socially connected he is)?
The moral charge is for us to help the poor. Francis condemns the poor to poverty and abuse. It is not a category error to point this out. Similarly, if Francis were correct that capitalists believe in the market because of a lack of concern for others, he would be right to call us out for it.
So, just to be clear, your first argument for Obama’s being a Marxist and Francis not being is that Obama’s desire that everyone have access to healthcare is motivated by evil thoughts, whereas Francis’ desire that everyone have access to healthcare is motivated by holy thoughts?
And, just to unpack an apparent assumption, if you’re a good person, you’re not a Marxist, but bad people with otherwise similar beliefs are Marxists?
Sure. I assume that you do not believe that the difference between being a Marxist and a non-Marxist depends on your views on SSM and abortion, though. If you really mean this argument, can you produce some suggestion that Marx was interested in either of these topics? He wrote a lot, so perhaps I have missed something.
I agree that Catholic doctrine supports that. Francis, though, constantly tugs in the other direction; his desire for strong international governance with secular sanctions is one of the dominant themes of his publications and of his public speaking. I should note that sanctions seem like the sort of persuasion measure that does not rely solely on moral standing.
Francis works for the Guy Who said to “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those who are ill or in prison.”
Where is this found? I think you are putting your gloss on it. Do you have a version that uses the imperative mood for those verbs?
Historically we’ve had some great popes, some very adequate popes, some very inadequate popes, and some horrible popes. The jury on this pope is that he expresses himself poorly at best. He was a retreat director. This style may be beneficial to those on retreat looking for spiritual direction one on one, but is not working for a lot of good and ordinary Catholics especially in Western nations who are trying to live out their vocations as Catholics.
Both as a Catholic and as a conservative I have no expectation that a progressive press will correctly recognize what is occurring in religion in general or in the political realm. Having a pope who also lacks any recognition of how he is used by such a press is hard to take.
Matthew 25: 35-40
I’ll also suggest that James’ epistle might have something to say about this.
Where is the quote in here as you stated it?
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
The Holy Bible: King James Version.
I certainly hope your assessment of the Pope is correct. His words and actions since his election to the Papacy have been interpreted by me as being strongly leftist and reminded me much of liberation theology teaching, which I got two grueling semesters of by a hard left former priest in college while trying to take courses on General Christian Theology.
If, as you say, his desire is to be a peacemaker, then why has he rejected a meeting with Cuban dissidents, while sitting to dine with a family and government that has the blood of thousands of innocents on their hands? It appears partisan to many and at the very least dismissive, wouldn’t you agree?
John 21:15
It has been so since the beginning; since before the first Bible was compiled centuries after Christ’s death. Human beings are creatures of action. We are designed to think, to feel, and to act. Faith is not idle. This is how it is expressed — in care of those most in need.
The Church has always understood charitable care as a necessary aspect of her mission.
It’s also noteworthy that early Christian communities often pooled their resources for equal division. But this was an arrangement entered into voluntarily. And it was a local arrangement. Many systems which make sense at a limited, local level do not make sense at a national, diverse, impersonal level.
Free will is central in Christianity. It is not absolute. We are created with given natures and roles. But choosing (“to know and love God”) is why we are here. The Church does not turn away from Mass or any service those who have not tithed. It follows that political “tithes” (taxes) should similarly honor freedom.
There is much deserving of criticism in the public comments of our bishops. Many are indeed overly biased against “capitalism”, though they undoubtedly define it in a variety of ways. But they are right to warn against economic idolatry. Freedom in the marketplace is at best opportunity.
A virtuous and adventurous people produce wonders with that freedom. Others produce addictive drugs, brutal pornography, and cheap trash that fills appetites without nourishing body or soul. What good are the securities of affluence if we lose sight of God and live as mere animals, aimlessly wandering from one snack to the next, desiring only to consume?
As parents teach their teenagers, freedom requires self-government. It can end in either flourishing or destruction. A Christian’s ultimate goal is to unify freedom and service; to let go of one’s life so our loving Creator may lead.
It is in good faith. I disagree. I’ve been there. I’ve held those as idols in my past. I work with a Conservative/Libertarian who has said that he no longer adheres to his Christianity because it seems to advocate redistribution. I’m not claiming to know anyone’s heart here, but I hear the same language I and my coworker used. I hear ideology over Christ.
Marxism, socialism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, capitalism are all ideologies. I exclude conservatism with a small “c” because properly understood conservatism is a method of looking to the past as a guide for the future, and is outside of ideology.
Here’s what everyone should internally, honestly answer to themselves: does capitalism and liberty mean more to you than following Jesus Christ. If it does then you are worshiping an idol.