#438: We Need to Stop Pigeon-Holing This Pope!

During and since the Pope’s US visit, too many Americans have been cutting his vision down to THEIR size! 

It’s no surprise that the visit of Pope Francis to the US drew widely varied reactions--even if they were mostly positive.  Compared to other public figures, his manner is so humble, his heart is so open, and his mind is so humane, that he defies easy comparisons.  But that did not stop observers from trying to pigeonhole him--usually by boxing him into the hole right next to their own.

There were also some negative reactions (or over-reactions).  There were those distressed by the visit itself, like the evangelical pastor who complained that Congress was giving him an official welcome of the sort usually reserved for elected leaders.  This is a pretty bad blind spot, since it ignores why Congress (and the President) merely followed the protocols of a state visit: because the pope IS a head of state, as well as an elected official.  This is not negated by the fact that he is also the head of Roman Catholic Church—any more that it would be for welcoming the Queen of England, who is both head of state of the UK AND the head of the Church of England.

Then there was the overreaction to the news that Francis had greeted Kim Davis.  Fueled by exaggerated claims by Davis and her lawyer that the pope was taking their side in her dispute with the law, reactions ranged from gleeful crowing (by conservatives) two outraged wailing (by liberals) until Vatican sources rebutted claims: this meet-and-greet was one of dozens, was strictly pro-forma, did not convey support for Davis’s particular case or position, and did not rank as an official audience. That status was reserved for one meeting: with a former student of Francis who is gay and brought along his long-time partner.  So much for pigeon-holing this pope!

Yet even those reacting positively, amid all the personal praise, too often needed to cut the pope’s message down to their size.  Conservatives in Congress applauded his defense of family, marriage, and civil rights, while liberals praised his remarks on climate change, immigration, and inequality.  On both sides a common theme emerged: “We like this pope on some issues, but not on all issues.”  Thus they cherry picked his message for their favorite parts, and tossed out the rest.  It was as if they pretended he was preaching to their choir, or even to both choirs at once.  There was no sense that they realized the pope was actually preaching beyond both choirs, offering a comprehensive and coherent vision in which all these issues are connected.  Indeed, they did their best to disconnect these issues into unrelated pieces. 

The most striking example came when the pope urged Congress to protect life at every stage of development.  No sooner had the conservative applause begun--they inferred the pope’s topic was “abortion”--than Francis proceeded to call for the abolition of the death penalty.  A surprised and audible yelp came from the gallery as the conservatives suddenly sat on their hands and the liberals rose in applause!

Even the media was often caught off guard.  Reports of that speech repeatedly claimed that Francis attacked legal abortion (even though the word never came up in his speech!) and failed to explain that pope was really preaching the “Seamless Garment of Life” ethic promoted by Chicago’s late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.

Some observers did get the point.  Chris Matthews’ first comment on the address to Congress was that Francis had created “a spiritual Mount Rushmore” by calling on Congress (and all Americans) to pursue a better future built on the civic virtues exemplified by four great Americans: Abraham Lincoln (freedom and hope), Martin Luther King (human rights and nonviolence), Dorothy Day (care for the poor and oppressed) and Thomas Merton (open dialogue and bridge-building rooted in reflection). 

And Bishop Robert Barron of Los Angeles commented, that “if you begin where the pope begins”—with the idea that our common home, including life itself, is God’s gift to us all as well as our responsibility to God and to each other--then “all the other issues line up.”

I’m afraid this fact did not register with millions of Americans, whether professionals in the media, or elected officials, or ordinary citizens.  Trying to pigeonhole the pope along conservative-vs.-liberal lines, they found him puzzling, even perplexingly inconsistent. They loved his warm smile and his open heart but they found his vision hard to wrap their minds around.

Ironically, this vision may be the least original thing about Francis.  Nearly all of his worldview draws on the classic core of modern Catholic Social teaching from John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul II, and Benedict XVI. I have argued that Paul VI in particular analyze the ethical challenges of globalization in 1967, becoming the "prophet of globalization" even before that term came into general use [see http://swaincrosscurrents.blogspot.com/2009/09/268-benedict-goes-outside-box.html ]. The difference is that, while Paul named this the challenge to achieve “Integral Human Development,” Francis has updated the name (with an environmental dimension) and now refers to “Integral and Sustainable Development.”

I continue to believe that this vision offers a clear and global worldview that no other public figure can match.  Indeed, this vision connects everything into one big picture, as I previously noted in analyzing the pope’s environmental encyclical from this past June:

Many commentators wrongly described the encyclical’s theme as “climate change.” In fact Francis presents climate change as just one piece of a much bigger puzzle.  He roots the problem of climate change in runaway carbon emissions, which are generated by our unsustainable reliance on fuels needed to power a runaway capitalist system that treats self-interest and greed as our most important social virtues.  This system despoils the global environment while generating not only intolerable levels of pollution but also intolerable levels of inequality.  The result, he says will be a progressive degrading of earth’s ecological systems which, while caused by the world’s wealthy, will disproportionately affect the world’s poor.  The solution to this massively dysfunctional global system is nothing less than a planetary ethical revolution that dethrones runaway capitalism as we know it and replaces it with a system that reflects more authentically humane values. 

In short, rather than focusing on science or environmentalism or economics or public policy or social justice or religion--Pope Francis has integrated them all into one big coherent vision.  No wonder he calls it “integral ecology”: it is not just the “big picture,” it is the biggest picture of all.      --CrossCurrents#432--07-03-15

It is no great mystery why many in Congress-- and many in America--resist this global vision.  It is not because they do not accept Catholic doctrines; this vision does not depend on those doctrines.  It is because they need to filter all they hear through their own preconceived notions.  They loved Francis’ open heart, but they struggled to open their own hearts.  They praised his call for dialogue, as long as their own opinions could remain non-negotiable. 

This begs the question: what difference does this make?  Almost every position which Francis took earned praise from someone.  It’s just that few praised his vision as a whole--or even recognize that whole vision’s power.   Does this matter? 

If the pope is right, it matters a lot--Because if he is right, we cannot solve any of our major problems in isolation, without grasping the big picture:

The world’s problems cannot be analyzed or explained in isolation….the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance, unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality…What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us…? This question not only concerns the environment in isolation; the issue cannot be approached piecemeal. When we ask ourselves what kind of world we want to leave behind, we think in the first place of its general direction, its meaning and its values. Unless we struggle with these deeper issues, I do not believe that our concern for ecology will produce significant results.     --Laudato Si, Pars.61, 138,160

But if the pope is right, that “big picture” calls for changes in all of us: changes in our daily lives, our consumption patterns, our relationships, our attitudes.  And if the pope is right, our survival is at stake--and that survival depends on understanding that those stakes are global but the solution starts with each one of us. 

So in the wake of Francis’ visit, the practical question facing all of us is this: do we rise to the challenge of this man’s vast vision, this big picture--Or do we keep cutting it down to our own size?

 Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015