#462: How to Judge Trump? By His Fruits You Will Know Him

Pope Francis on Trump: "Wait and see"

Everyone knows we are divided, and no one thinks that’s good. But we seem at a loss for a solution. Can the Catholic Vision help? How?

 Sometimes teachers learn more than they teach!

Recently I conducted a session for adults preparing to join the Roman Catholic Church.  An important question surfaced: are Catholic Social Teachings just general principles without much practical direction, or do they include specific actions to implement those principles--or are they someplace in between?

The question would be important anytime, since the answer determines how relevant Catholic Social Teaching  (CST) is to our daily experience of the society and the culture we inhabit.  But the question is especially urgent now, when Americans are divided into two equally unhappy camps.

One camp is convinced that America is in grave danger from terrorists, illegal immigrants, refugees, rampant crime, lost jobs, unfair trade deals, the media, and the power of establishment elites.  The other camp is equally convinced that America is endangered by a dishonest, incompetent, paranoid administration that is bent on conning the public and curtailing our rights and protections to achieve its mission of self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment.

Observing these two unhappy camps locked in a power struggle, I recall a key theme from Vatican II (1962-1965): that the Catholic Church must position itself as a public source of wisdom, to help steer power away from evil and toward good.

This begs the question: can Catholic Social Teaching do that job? Can it provide the wisdom we need to steer this current power struggle in the US toward good results?

Pope Francis has been speaking to this question quite a lot recently. His comments focus on two notions of great practical value for people of faith.

Notion #1: “Wait and See.” One thing both unhappy camps share is inflated rhetoric.  One side invents its own facts: immigrants are pouring in, refugees import terror, crime is soaring, joblessness stems from free trade and regulation.  The other side spins hypothetical horror scenes of mass deportations, treasonous collusion, police state tactics.  Such rhetoric fuels the conflict but provides little basis for resolving it.

Francis prefers to wait for concrete facts.  In his January 22 interview with the Spanish newspaper  El Pais, when asked about of his own opinion of the new American president, Pope Francis avoided both alarmism and cheerleading.  He suggested, rightly I think, the prudence of basing any response on actual events rather than invented fears or anticipated outrages:

I think that we must wait and see. I don't like to get ahead of myself nor judge people prematurely. We will see how he acts, what he does, and then I will have an opinion. But being afraid or rejoicing beforehand because of something that might happen is, in my view, quite unwise. It would be like prophets predicting calamities or windfalls that will not be either. We will see. We will see what he does and will judge. Christianity always rests on the specific, either a position is specific or it is not Christianity.

…We need specifics. And from the specific we can draw consequences. We lose sense of the concrete. The other day, a thinker was telling me that this world is so upside down that it needs a fixed point. And those fixed points stem from the concrete. What did you do, what did you decide, how do you move. That is what I prefer to wait and see.

The public response to Trump’s travel ban is a perfect illustration of “specific” action.  The very day the government began detaining immigrants, green card holders, even those with visas, protesters thronged airports, vast crowds filled city squares, and the courts acted swiftly to halt the ban. This fits rather neatly with Francis’ advice.  Rather than jump to conclusions, we should respond to results. 

But this leaves open the question: on what basis do we judge the results?

Notion #2: The Relevance of Catholic Social Teaching.  Of course, specific responses presume preparation.  They require the ability to mobilize people who are ready to act and who know when the time for action has arrived.  Pope Benedict XVI famously said that the Church cannot stand on the sidelines in the fight for justice--but to arbitrate any contest, one must master the rules. So in many recent statements, Pope Francis has been demonstrating how Catholic Social Teaching (CST) can provide practical rules for the conflicts we face.

Such practical teaching must avoid two extremes.  If CST offers only general principles, arguing about how they apply might lead to endless debate that frustrates rather than promotes action.  But if CST attempts to dictate specific policies or actions, people may argue that the Church is stepping beyond its expertise into technical areas where its competence is suspect.  In short, if the Church wants CST to provide practical wisdom, then it must go beyond theoretical platitudes but avoid technical solutions.

And here Francis guides us, for in comment after comment he makes it clear that CST offers something different.  CST offers neither mere principles nor specific solutions; instead, it offers concrete criteria for judging actions that we or others take to solve problems.

This makes CST highly pragmatic.  Instead of obsessing over hypotheticals, it focuses on actual results.  Instead of claiming to provide concrete solutions, CST provides clear criteria for evaluating concrete solutions.  It’s not enough to take actions that achieve results; those results must fit CST criteria or be rejected. In this sense, the gospel message is radically pragmatic: we need not argue about rhetoric or theories, but ask rather which theories are working or not working. Thus CST cannot dictate solutions, but it can judge them.

And this helps us to prepare to act, because we can formulate the criteria in advance of any particular action.  Francis has demonstrated this over and over.  Examples abound:

Asked by El Pais about populism that carries a message of “xenophobia and hatred toward the foreigner,” the pope replied:

Crises provoke fear, alarm. In my opinion, the most obvious example of European populism is Germany in 1933. After (Paul von) Hindenburg, after the crisis of 1930, Germany is broken, it needs to get up, to find its identity, a leader, someone capable of restoring its character…“Let’s look for a savior who gives us back our identity and let’s defend ourselves with walls, barbed-wire, whatever, from other peoples who may rob us of our identity.” And that is a very serious thing…No country has the right to deprive its citizens of the possibility of talking with their neighbors.

The use of “savior” here is key, since it implies that for Christians such a politics is idolatry—as clear a criterion as any in our faith!

Asked about the treatment of refugees and other religion, the pope was equally concrete:

You cannot be a Christian without living like a Christian. You cannot be a Christian without practicing the Beatitudes. You cannot be a Christian without doing what Jesus teaches us in Matthew 25.

Matthew chapter 25 is Jesus’ injunction to help the needy by such works of mercy as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and welcoming the stranger. The pope went on:

It’s hypocrisy to call yourself a Christian and chase away a refugee or someone seeking help, someone who is hungry or thirsty, toss out someone who is in need of my help…If I say I am Christian, but do these things, I’m a hypocrite.

So if criterion #1 is idolatry, #2 is hypocrisy.

In mid-February Francis sent a letter to a meeting of popular movements in California to express his view of popular resistance movements:

It makes me very happy to see you working together towards social justice…because it builds bridges between peoples and individuals. These are bridges that can overcome the walls of exclusion, indifference, racism, and intolerance…For some time, the crisis of the prevailing paradigm has confronted us. I am speaking of a system that causes enormous suffering to the human family, simultaneously assaulting people’s dignity and our Common Home in order to sustain the invisible tyranny of money that only guarantees the privileges of a few.

These are signs of the times that we need to recognise in order to act.…The grave danger is to disown our neighbours. When we do so, we deny their humanity and our own humanity without realising it; we deny ourselves, and we deny the most important Commandments of Jesus. Herein lies the danger, dehumanisation.

Criterion # 3: Disowning the neighbor leads to dehumanization.

Within the last two weeks some journals headlined the pope's opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline being constructed through US tribal lands. Actually, the pope never mentioned the pipeline. But he offered a clear criterion for addressing that case, when he told representatives of indigenous peoples at a U.N. agricultural meeting that the key issue facing them is how to reconcile the right to economic development with protecting their cultures and territories.

Francis at the Conference on indigenous peoples in Rome

Indigenous people, he said, have a right to their ancestral lands. And this provides a clear rule for action:

In this regard, the right to prior and informed consent should always prevail…Only then is it possible to guarantee peaceful cooperation between governing authorities and indigenous peoples, overcoming confrontation and conflict.

Finally, when Francis takes on the “Trickle Down Theory” for reducing economic inequality (see CrossCurrents #461), he does not talk about equality of OPPORTUNITY--he talks about the actual results of economic structures that, whatever the theory on paper, in practice LEAVE millions excluded from prosperity. We may argue about why this happens, and who is responsible, and how to solve the problem--but we may NOT deny that it is a problem that plagues most third-world countries as well as our own.

The preferential option for the poor is a matter of principle for Catholic Social Teaching, and no system that results in massive inequality can be justified by any theory. The pope believes the current model has had ample opportunity to prove itself, and has failed. So it is folly to expect suddenly better results if we cling to what Francis calls "the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." He believes it is time to give “equal opportunity” to another model.

Thus, on issue after issue, this pope advises that we “wait and see” but also prepare ourselves with clear standards for judging what actually happens. And for THAT job, Catholic Social Teaching provides a valuable legacy.

"By their fruits you will know them...."—and By His Fruits You Will know Him.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2017

#461: Making our Future Great Again—2: Trump’s “Trickle Down” Is No Magic Solution

At 80, Francis remains one of the world’s most popular and dynamic leaders, the most visible spokesperson for a vision of the future unrivaled by any political party or organization. I’m surveying the priorities of the Catholic vision in light of a post-election season that has left me both dispirited and perplexed about our prospects as a people. The topic this time: Economic Justice.

Pope Francis Meeting With Workers

Economic Justice

The Trump campaign clearly exploited the discontent of many working class voters (especially white voters) who feel left behind by the globalizing and automation of our economy. 

The economic dislocations brought by globalization, deindustrialization, and automation have been a long time coming. The challenge was already a topic of my economics studies in the late 1960s. Early on, it also touched my own family.

My father worked at General Electric from 39 years, and by the early 1970s he was president of his local engineering union. America’s jet engine was invented at the River Works plant in Lynn Massachusetts, which since World War II had been producing aircraft engines 24 hours a day.

But as the Vietnam War wound down in the 1970s, defense contracts shrunk and GE began laying off workers—including many members of my father’s union.  As citizen, my father wanted the war to end, but as union president, he was concerned about the welfare of his fellow workers.

Years later, my younger brother also worked at the River Works but was eventually laid off, caught by the continuing general decline of GE’s manufacturing business. At one point, thanks largely to GE’s presence, the New England region as a whole had employed 33,675 jet engine workers--27.8 percent of total US aircraft engine employment. By the mid-1980s, the River Works employment stood at 13,000. But the 1990s brought a drastic downturn, and by 2016 the plant employed a mere 2,850.

Ironically, in 2016, GE decided to move its world headquarters to Boston’s Fort Point Channel, where it will continue to expand its operations in the “internet of things.”  Decades after Ronald Reagan promoted GE’s Manufacturing prowess in television ads (“We Bring Good Things To Life!”), GE’s future lies, not on the assembly line, but in the cloud.

GE’s journey echoes the general US trend away from manufacturing—a trend that has left middle-class incomes falling for 40 years and opened a massive wealth inequality gap.

Trump’s Solution

Now Trump promises to restore jobs and reduce inequality in four ways: (1) penalizing U.S. companies who attempt to outsource jobs, (2) penalizing foreign imports with new tariffs, (3) investing “trillions” on America’s badly degraded infrastructure, and (4) reducing taxes across the board to stimulate job-producing growth,

The first action (1) may protect some jobs, though I believe (along with many economists) that most such jobs are gone forever. Tariffs and protectionist policies (2) risk trade wars wall as international tensions in an era when all economics--markets, corporations, and government policies--have become increasingly international.  For example, the European Union, for all its flaws, made free trade the cornerstone of its vision to bring peace to Europe after generations of war by encouraging nations to become packers rather than rivals.  And for more than 60 years it has worked.  I doubt the U.S. can simply return to a more isolated posture.

Step (3) might happen two ways. We might use tax money to create public jobs as we did during the New Deal, when FDR crated public works projects that put people to work in massive numbers. Or, we might see tax money going to corporations and wait for them to create jobs. Trump proposes the latter, which is the point of step (4)--reducing taxes across the board, for rich and poor, to produce jobs.

This presumes the working of “trickle down economics”: money at the top builds business, so the economy grows, and the wealth produced trickles down to those at the bottom. But Catholic Social Teaching, and Pope Francis in particular, reject outright this theory as a fraud.

The Catholic View

As Francis wrote in his very first major document, the 2013 apostolic exhortation, “The Joy of the Gospel”:

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.

Notice the term “sacralized,” which means “treated as something sacred.” Francis is saying we will fail to build economic justice if we turn the “prevailing economic system” (capitalist market economics) into something sacred—that is, into an idol. Francis even cites the classic Biblical image for idolatry:

The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

In a 2015 speech in Bogota, Colombia, Francis returned to the “idol” image:

Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.

Same people might claim that Francis is merely voicing a personal opinion, which Catholics can take or leave--or worse, he is spouting Marxist theories! But in an interview with an Italian newspaper, he rightly insisted that he speaks as the voice of Catholic Social Doctrine:

There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the ‘trickle-down theories’ which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist.

In his 2015 encyclical on climate change, “Laudato Si,” Francis returned to the same theme, saying free  markets cannot work magic:

 Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth…Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals.

Some have tried to blunt the force of this critique, but even conservative Catholic commentators have conceded that Francis is setting a standard for all Catholics. Patrick Brennan made this clear while reviewing The Joy of the Gospel for National Review, the journal founded by the famous Catholic conservative William F. Buckley:

The pope’s discussion…is about how Catholics should respond to the overwhelming changes that have come to the world “in our time,” which have made many richer and more secure, but left many impoverished and suffering. Those…changes, as free marketeers would surely agree, are not the product of command-and-control economics, but of free markets. The pope is arguing that freer markets haven’t so far brought us a properly just, caring society, and “in our time,” society has in many ways grown coarser, crueler, and more violent — so Catholics cannot advocate free markets per se. Some proponents of free markets may take issue with that sentiment; most would not.

So here is where we stand: Our new president is proposing to “fix” our economy, produce jobs, reduce inequality, and repair our infrastructure--all by reducing taxes across the board, thus freeing the corporate sector to spend more in a way that will benefit all. Unless he proposes something else to accompany this policy, he is clearly counting on the free market to solve all our problems without major government efforts (aside from tax reform and reduction).

There is no escaping the obvious conclusion: Trump believes the very “magical view” of free markets that Pope Francis (and Catholic Social Doctrine with him) rejects. In my view, the outcome is predictable: as long as we continue to idolize free markets and reject public action to redistribute income, the economic division in our culture will continue to fester and grow. A better future requires us to recognize that inequality can only be solved by redistributing wealth, not by adding to wealth at all levels. And only those who idolize free markets believe that they alone can do that.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2017

#460: Making Our Future Great Again: Connecting the Climate Dots

Happy Birthday to our Planet's Protector.

The pope’s recent 80^th birthday 
has left me thinking 

that our future may depend on his.

Shortly after Benedict XVI resigned in 2013 at the age of 80, I paid my (almost) annual visit to France to visit friends, among them Michel Pansard, who just happens to be the bishop of Chartres.  Over dinner he expressed his conviction that Benedict was setting a precedent: that future popes might no longer serve for life, but would retire--presumably as he did, at 80 (this happens to be the age at which cardinals become ineligible to vote for pope).

It so happens Pope Francis and I share the same December 17 birthday, and this time it made me very aware of two things.  First, at 80 he shows no signs of resigning his post.  Second, he makes me envy his energy and endurance, for, even at 80, he remains one of the world’s most popular and dynamic leaders, and he has made himself the most visible spokesperson for a vision of the future that, in my view, is unrivaled by any political party or organization. 

I can only hope to sustain his sort of enthusiasm when I am his age.  But I confess the last year or so has challenged me to retain the kind of youthful spark I see in him. For the post-election season has left me both despirited and perplexed about our prospects as a people.

As someone prone to filtering current events through the lens of Catholicism’s social vision, I have never been fond of the Republican-Democratic duopoly of “politics as usual.” And since that politics evolved into neo-conservatism in the 1980s and neo-liberalism in the 1990s, I’ve liked it even less. Now our deeply flawed electoral system has awarded the presidency to the less popular of the two least popular candidates in our lifetime.

It is clear that Donald Trump (like Bernie Sanders) offered an alternative to such politics.  But while “alternative” means “different,” it does not always mean “better.” And I admit that, as I survey the priorities of the Catholic vision in light of recent developments, I find myself not so much hoping for the best as fearing for our future.

I temper my judgments with the proviso that it is seldom clear if president-elect Trump means what he says.  Those who took him literally but not seriously during the campaign were badly wrong; yet those who took him seriously but not literally are hard pressed to do more than guess what he will do.  Since he has contradicted himself on nearly every public issue, he can only mean about half of what he says--but I seldom know which half.  Keeping in mind that predictions about Trump are therefore often unreliable, let me briefly survey some main priorities of Catholic Social Teaching which, I remain convinced, offers the wisest contemporary vision for a better future.  I’ll include climate change, economic justice, human rights, globalization, respect for life, and peace.

Climate Change

I was sadly disappointed that climate change received such scant attention in the electoral campaign.  Trump called it a hoax, while Clinton called it real and requiring action--but neither one gave it much detail or attention.  The topic never came up in the debates, and neither campaign sought to motivate voters over the issue.

Yet for me, this was the overriding issue--not just of the campaign, but of our time.

I say this not only because climate change can disastrously alter the future of our planet, but also because, as Pope Francis has brilliantly shown, climate change is the master key to unlocking most of our biggest social problems.  Once we see how Francis connects the dots, it becomes hard to imagine resolving any of our major problems unless we address the environment.  Let me number those dots:

Francis presents climate change as just one piece of a much bigger puzzle.  He roots the problem in (1) runaway emissions (especially carbon and methane), which are generated by (2) our unsustainable reliance on fuels needed to power (3) a runaway capitalist system that (4) treats self-interest and greed as our most important social virtues.  This system (5) despoils the global environment while generating not only (6) intolerable levels of pollution but also (7) intolerable levels of inequality.  The result, he says will be a (8) progressive degrading of earth’s ecological systems which, while caused by the world’s wealthy, will (9) disproportionately affect the world’s poor.  The effects include (10) mass migrations away from destitute and dangerous regions, especially those ravaged by violence, rising seas, or lack of fresh water.  Such migrations are already being triggered by (11) the persistent terrorism in a world where resentful millions feel victimized by the power dynamics of post-colonial market systems--what Francis calls “the globalization of indifference.”

Connecting the dots allows the “big picture” to emerge: our status quo is already generating deep conflicts the will only get worse as the planet becomes less and less habitable. In this big picture, most of our biggest problems--inequality, the environment, refugees, terror, war--threaten to become intractable unless we act to change the very things that threaten the planet as well.

The solution to this massively dysfunctional global system, says Francis, 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. He calls for an “integral ecology” that enables global development to be both humane and sustainable.

Thus at 80 Francis has positioned himself (and with him, the papacy) as the world’s most visible protector of the planet.  This also makes the papacy the world’s strongest voice challenging us to face the future of humanity--and especially the future of humanity beyond the prevailing capitalist model.

The United States is the world’s #2 carbon emitting nation, and short of aggressive action our commitment to last year’s landmark Paris accord will falter, and our nation will remain a prime contributor to the degradation of what Francis calls “Our Common Home.”

In this light, dear reader, forgive me if I lament the early signs that the Trump administration may be unwilling to face this challenge.  Its failure on this issue will condemn us to the ripple effects that Francis has already noted. Because of him, we’ve been forewarned, and we ignore him at our own peril—as well as the planet’s.

Next: Economic justice

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2017

#440: Our Faith Is Going “Green”--And We Can Help!

It was one of those weeks when separate events converge to signal a trend that touches us all. 

The Washington Post just reported that representatives of Catholic Bishops “from around the globe” signed an appeal calling on next month’s UN climate conference in Paris to “approve a ‘transformative’ and legally binding agreement that set the global temperature limits.” This appeal reinforces the campaign of Pope Francis to protect “our common home.”

The Post also reported a study in the journal Nature Climate Change warning that five major Persian Gulf cities could become physically “uninhabitable” (due to heat) by the end of the century.

And the Boston Globe reported interesting data from the U.S. Census Bureau.  In the 2005-2014 decade, the number of Bostonians commuting to work by bike tripled.  Public transit commuting also increased, as did walking to work and working at home.  The only decrease: people driving to work.

Reading that last report, I thought first of my own past.  I bike-commuted to downtown Boston for 10 summers (except rainy days), 1978-1987.  I had also commuted by bike across Boston’s north shore while in college for two summer jobs, and then biked to my senior year classes from off-campus.  On one of those bikes I mounted a small green-and-white mini license plate that read “Non-Polluting Vehicle.”

Thinking back, it occurs to me that I was emulating two older role models.  The first was John McGrath, a 60+ co-worker who rode his three-speed bike to General Electric’s West Lynn (Massachusetts) plant every day. The second was my own father, who rode his bike 6 miles to GE’s Everett (Massachusetts) point in his 40s and 50s.

These men were thinking “economizing” and “exercise,’ not “ecology”--but their example remains for me today.  And my son Chris often gets to his La Jolla (California) job by bike--a 3^rd generation “cyclo-commuter” !

What do all these things signal?  Three things, I think: (1) The consensus on the man-made threat to our environment is now so strong that only people in denial can doubt it; (2) The Catholic Church is now throwing its weight squarely behind the push to reduce carbon emissions; (3) Pope Francis has made this push a moral imperative even for individuals and families. As Francis wrote in his encyclical “Laudato Si”:

A change in lifestyle could bring healthy pressure to bear on those who wield political, economic and social power. This is what consumer movements accomplish by boycotting certain products…This shows us the great need for a sense of social responsibility on the part of consumers. “Purchasing is always a moral – and not simply economic – act.” Today, in a word, “the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our lifestyle.”

For Catholics, this means reflecting on actions within our control.  As Francis says:

We are always capable of going out of ourselves towards the other…Disinterested concern for others, and the rejection of every form of self-centeredness and self-absorption, are essential if we truly wish to care for our brothers and sisters and for the natural environment. These attitudes also attune us to the moral imperative of assessing the impact of our every action and personal decision on the world around us. If we can overcome individualism, we will truly be able to develop a different lifestyle and bring about significant changes in society.

The point is not for all of us to take up cycling (my trip to my client on Martha’s Vineyard, for example, is 70+ miles overland, plus a 45-minute boat trip—too far to bike!).  No, the point is to ask: “what is possible for me? How can I adjust my way of life to make it more sustainable, more eco-friendly?  How can I take some stewardship for our common home?” In  Francis’ words, it is about building new habits:

An awareness of the gravity of today’s cultural and ecological crisis must be translated into new habits. Many people know that our current progress and the mere amassing of things and pleasures are not enough to give meaning and joy to the human heart, yet they feel unable to give up what the market sets before them...A milieu of extreme consumerism and affluence which makes it difficult to develop other habits. We are faced with an educational challenge…Yet this education, aimed at creating an “ecological citizenship,” is at times limited to providing information, and fails to instill good habits... Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment.

It’s easy to misunderstand this challenge.  When I told a recent group that Vatican City became the world’s first carbon neutral state by buying up a large forest, many investors were skeptical.  “That doesn’t even reduce their energy use!” They said. 

True enough--but no one can live modern life by reducing their carbon emissions to zero.  Even all-electric cars mostly depend on power generated by burning fossil fuels, since hydro and wind-generated electricity (“clean electricity”) still supplies less than half our power.  Nearly everything we buy, even food, has been produced, directly or indirectly, by burning carbon--and has burned more carbon while shipping to the store.  Many homes would go dark and unheated and/or uncooled without carbon emissions, and without  burning carbon all our batteries would fail to recharge.

No, the reduction of our carbon footprint is a more complex challenge.  To become “carbon neutral” means balancing carbon emissions with carbon absorption.  This requires both reducing carbon emissions and increasing offsetting measures.  So the Vatican’s forest, for example, will absorb as much carbon (trees do it naturally, of course) as Vatican City emits.  By buying the forest, those trees are preserved for that purpose. 

For us, such balancing must be done on a case-by-case basis.  There are many ways we can reduce emissions.  We can convert our heating, cooling, and cars away from carbon-burning fuels.  We can alter our thermostats: lower for heating, higher for cooling.  We can drive less, we can use more public transportation, conserve the electricity used by our appliances, lights, and machinery.  Some of us can convert to solar or wind power. We can shop locally more to reduce shipping emissions.  Many online sites provide tips for planning ways to reduce our domestic carbon footprint.

But in addition to reducing emissions, we can also boost carbon absorption to offset our emissions and bring our carbon footprint closer to zero. One obvious way is to plant trees:

According to the Urban Forestry Network, a single young tree absorbs 13 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. That amount will climb up to 48 pounds annually as trees mature. Just one 10-year-old tree releases enough oxygen into the air to support two human beings.

In my case, for example, two young dogwood trees were planted on our property the year before we bought it. They joined another 7 trees on our plot. Without actually calculating the benefits, we know these trees offset some of our emissions.

It’s also possible to support offsets remotely, as Vatican City did:

This is done by purchasing ‘carbon credits’ from accredited companies which offer this service, who will then invest those dollars in (for instance) renewable energy projects or planting trees. (from the website Mashable)

Most experts believe it’s impossible to offset all the planet’s current emissions. But one eco-conscious site, Brave New Climate, suggests our efforts can still serve a spiritual purpose:

Carbon offsets should definitely not be seen as the solution, or as a relatively pain-free way to expel your carbon guilt. There is nowhere near enough offsetting potential in the world for this to be an option for most of the world’s population. But in conjunction with other methods of kicking the CO₂ habit, offsets can help make a difference and allow you to pay a small penance.

PENANCE! Imagine using such an old Catholic term for our eco-efforts. But it makes perfect sense: our common home is struggling, not by accident, but because our way of life is exhausting its resources, and even depriving others of resources they need.

In short, our ecological crisis poses a moral imperative because it comes from a moral failure. As Pope Francis explains in his critical reading of Genesis:

We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man “dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations.

In other words, the failure to understand Genesis provided past excuses for mistreating the planet. This may not be our own moral failure, but the failure of past generations of whom we are heirs. In that sense, “going green” CAN be seen as a “small penance” for the sins of our ancestors—and a commitment to leave our childrens’s children’s children a “common home” that is more respectful of God’s great gifts.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015

#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