But Friday night one of my Pope Francis tweets got favorited and also retweeted (my first):
@Pontifex needs to denounce the misery of nationalism, worship of the deceitful false god of central planning; to embrace Subsidiarity.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) August 2, 2014
I also added a second tweet Saturday night:
@Pontifex continues to speak out against money and power; the people ignore moral teachings, spiritual discipline. But who am I to judge?
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) August 3, 2014
I'm sure that the pontiff gets more than his share of unsolicited advice, but I want to expand on these comments:First, Pope Francis seems to have a very populist style. I think that's understandable given his background from Argentina, which seems to be headed down the road of yet another major default as I type. I myself have found his simplistic style and personal charm appealing. He seems to be media-savvy and has found some powerful ways to make a symbolic statement, such as the novel washing the feet of women, inmates, and/or disabled on Holy Thursday. His infamous "who am I to judge gays?" gained significant headlines and probably clinched Time's Man of the Year; who can argue with the success of his publicity? He's opened a lot of non-Catholic ears; isn't that the point?
I don't think so. I think for one thing when you engage in gimmicks, you are only as good as your last gimmick, and you run the risk of being perceived, like Obama, as all hat and no cattle. (Recall when Christ's adversaries mocked Him and demanded that He work a sign or miracle for their benefit.) And how has he used that publicity to the greater benefit of the Church, e.g., to expand its membership, call back lapsed Catholics or spread the Good News? It may have simply reflected his personal appeal, which can be a matter of vanity. But worse, I think he lost control of his message, and he was co-opted by the "progressive", politically correct media. They viewed it as signifying the Church's acceptance of or capitulation to the gay political agenda. I will say this one time: the Church will NEVER change its historic support of traditional marriage and family, and it will not alter its stand against extramarital sexual activities. Pope Francis' remark
reflects John 8:11; note that He does not condemn/judge the woman, but He's unambiguously saying that her adulterous behavior was unacceptable:
3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”Jesus' position on marriage was uncompromising in the following selection from Matthew 19. Notice in verse 10, He's getting pushback from His disciples, claiming that He is being unrealistic (which also happened in other settings). The idea that the pontiff would equivocate on the hard words of Christ is unthinkable. What Pope Francis is saying to gay people is that each one of you is a child of God, and we love you in His name unconditionally. Nothing you have done is unforgiveable or alienates you from Him. Honor Him by living a chaste lifestyle:
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."Now personally, I have a different approach from Pope Francis. For example, as a student, I always held and treated my own professors with the utmost respect. Some professors did mix with the students, and I'll never forget my cost accounting professor saying, just before teaching evaluations were distributed, that regardless of what you did to date, if you scored 95 on the final, you got an A in the course. Needless to say the B/C students were ecstatic; of course, the chance of one of them scoring a 95 was next to none, but it was unexpected and very popular. I felt it was a manipulative ploy meant to bump his ratings.
When I became a professor, my role had changed; I was no longer a student or friend; I was their teacher, more of a mentor and an adviser. Some students were disrespectful; a few tried to address me as "Ron" without my knowledge or consent (certain colleagues encouraged that sort of thing): I would repeat "Dr. Guillemette" until they did the same. Similarly, even though Pope Francis may not like all the pomp and circumstance of his office and may remind others that he puts on his pants one leg at a time like everyone else, if I honor him, it's not because of him personally but because of what he represents.
But to a bigger issue, I dislike an unprincipled populism involving dividing people into classes. This is intrinsically adversarial and unproductive. He asks who is he to judge gays, but in the next breath condemns others worshipping money and power. In fact, Jesus did have followers whom were wealthy; recall His ability to secure quarters in Jerusalem during Passover and His tomb came from a friendly benefactor. He mentions that His enemies accused Him of gluttony, of befriending the wrong types of people, like tax collectors; He had cured a centurion's servant. Jesus went to extremes to avoid being seen as an insurrectionist, refused to allow a crowd to make Him king. In fact, Satan promised Jesus worldly power during His 40 days in the wilderness.
Jesus was not focused on collective action; He talked about individual responsibility and accountability; he is not agitating against the Roman occupation or arguing for Rome to address poverty in Israel. Charitable acts are a means of praying to/glorifying God, not some sentimental emulation of secular humanism. The parable of the talents is also telling; of course, it's symbolic: Jesus is saying one must be productive with the gift of his life and one's resources, and industriousness is a critical value. One should also note that Jesus is not contradicting the Old Testament which is replete with references to God's blessing of prosperity for His faithful, diligent servants. I agree that Jesus did make references to difficulties of the rich, i.e., serving both God and an obsession with one's material wellbeing. But Jesus is careful not to condemn the rich or to argue that the rich are "stealing" from the poor. At one point, He rebukes Judas for criticizing a woman anointing Him with expensive oil, noting the cost of the oil could have been spent on the poor; Jesus points out that the poor will always be with us.
I think Pope Francis comes dangerously close to losing control of his message and seeing it be conflated with a secular "progressive" political agenda; already, Obama has attempted to identify his "economic justice" with the Pope's notion. The pope's appeal is based more on moral persuasion; God loves all His children, including those whom have enjoyed material success. God did not issue some redistributive mechanism, and the last thing that the pontiff needs is to be seen as judgmental of the upper 1%, but not of gays... There may be different ways for the rich to respond to God's message that doesn't mean legal plunder by an ineffective self-serving central planning bureaucracy. My first tweet specifically pointed out the principle of Subsidiarity, which is consistent with past Church social teachings.
The Pope must be careful and review his own motives: is he looking for popularity by bashing the rich? (Vanity is a vice.) For example, some people get rich by finding ways to make goods and services available and more affordable to lower-income people; inexpensive computing devices and Internet services provide educational and business opportunities. How does he know about what the rich are doing or not doing, say anonymously to the poor, contributing to make it possible for children from low-income families to attend Catholic schools? Keep in mind, for instance, even if the US seized all the assets of Bill Gates and/or Warren Buffett, it would amount to barely a down payment on the current year deficit, never mind ongoing operations. Does he consider, for instance, the unintended consequences, like land reform in Zimbabwe and its tragic effect on the poor?
As the primary beneficiaries of the land reform were members of the Government and their families, despite the fact that most had no experience in running a farm, the drop in total farm output has been tremendous and has even produced starvation and famine, according to aid agencies. Export crops have suffered tremendously in this period. Whereas Zimbabwe was the world's 6th largest producer of tobacco in 2001, in 2005 it produced less than 1/3 the amount produced in 2000, which is the lowest amount in 50 years. Zimbabwe was once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, while it is now struggling to feed its own population. About 45 percent of the population is now considered malnourished. Crops for export such as tobacco, coffee and tea have suffered the most under the land reform, with e.g. a reduction in tobacco production by 43% from 2000 to 2009. The main everyday food for Zimbabweans, maize, has been reduced by 31%, while small grains production has grown by 163%.A final note about the pope's populism. It's very important for the pope to market his message distinctively (i.e., a Catholic vs. secular message) and refrain from intervening in the internal political affairs of other countries; the pope might not understand the detailed nuances of national policy--bills or laws often have high-sounding titles, but are bad policy; he should distinguish between principles/goals and implementations. I fully expect to hear the pope to speak out against the moral evils of war, abortion, etc. But faithful Catholics in a country may be on different sides of a political divide, and all the pope ends up doing is dividing his own flock. I oppose government social programs; this does not mean I'm indifferent to the plight of the poor, but I think the private sector, in accordance with the principle of Subsidiarity, does it better, more reponsively, efficiently, compassionately than a bureaucrat shuffling paperwork. What I think the pope should be doing, if anything, is pushing for a way to expand the scope of its charity institutions without compromising its moral teachings.
Second, the Pope should not get involved in discussions that go beyond matters of his distinctive core competencies of faith and morals. In the past, the Church has had questionable clashes with science. In particular, I'm referencing his ill-advised exhortation's dismissal of free markets. I have criticized the exhortation in past posts, but I want to emphasize a few points. First of all, his discussion was unoriginal, secular, and polemical in nature. He essentially paraphrases socialist/"progressive" talking points, repeats caricatures of social darwinism (a particularly unfair, knowingly out of context reference to Herbert Spencer), and mocks the concept of the invisible hand. The latter point particularly annoys me; let us recall Matthew 10:
29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.b 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.So the Pope doesn't believe in spontaneous order? What about central planning inspires him? The notorious bread lines in the former Soviet Union, toilet paper shortages and power outages in contemporary Venezuela? Forced sterilizations? Millions who lost lives under brutal fascist and Marxist regimes? How is a corrupt public official under a Statist regime any preferable? How is it right for labor unions to gain artificially high wages at the expense of the suppression of other workers, whom also have economic rights? How is it right for a country to artificially restrict imports and thus deprive poor people of more economical alternative goods? Don't the foreign workers making those goods also have a right to make a living?
The Pope seems to embrace one-sided mercantilistic concepts; what free market systems do is to raise the standard of living for all in expanded markets. Libertarians generally are anti-war because war is fundamentally destructive of lives and property. Libertarians focus on free will and personal accountability, not the morally-hazardous State which paternalistically makes choices for the individual. Jesus did not teach us to promote the State and thus evade our moral responsibilities. The Pope needs to read the works of classical liberalism closely; the difference is that the State relies on brute force, while libertarians insist on voluntary action, the need to persuade.
Finally, I question the Pope's "big picture". The Church in the USA is facing severe challenges. There are roughly two-thirds of priests vs. the number in 1965, while the number of Catholics is up by over 40%. The ordination trend seems to be leveling off after a long decline, but can't keep up with attrition rates (say, retirements). The number of parishes is decreasing while a steadily increasing number of parishes don't have a resident pastor. The vocations problem is even worse for nuns/religious sisters--down nearly 75%. Mass attendance is down to about a quarter of Catholics, less than half the rate in 1965, while baptisms, first communions, confirmations, and marriages are also trending down; Catholic elementary schools are down by half, secondary schools and colleges by roughly a third.
I'm not suggesting that the pope is responsible for this; it seems to be more of a general post-Vatican II decline, and I expect we are seeing similar trends elsewhere, especially Europe. The ironic thing is as the Church became less restrictive (e.g., time span between eating and Communion, fish on Friday's), more social justice oriented and hip, more in tune with the common culture with guitar masses, etc., it has become less relevant. As familiar readers of this blog know, I initially started college at 16, thinking I had a vocation for the priesthood. (In fact, my mom had sewn together vestments made from beach towels for me to play mass while in elementary school.) But, in addition to my first girlfriend, my growing discomfort with what I saw as a more secular drift of the Church led me to defer a decision; it's hard to pinpoint when I finally dropped this goal, but I think the point of no return was when I attended Sunday Mass while at UT-Austin, and the priest actually based a homily on Olivia Newton-John's "Have You Never Been Mellow?" When I joined the Newman Center at UH, I found the missals had generic male references, e.g., in the Nicene Creed, scratched out in ink (and one of the priests would actually pause over them). It was now officially entering the politically correct silly season. At the same time, little, if any, mention of Church teachings on morality, especially extramarital sex; I personally know two girls raised Catholic whom got pregnant in high school and college respectively. I'm not saying my concerns are representative of other Catholics', but I don't have confidence in a clueless, weak, accommodative leadership during a crisis of a licentious culture, 40 years of abortion on demand, an undermining of the traditional institutions of family and marriage. If you go to the Cardinal Newman Society's Catholic Education Daily's portal, you'll see headlines that seem straight out of the Onion like this: "Notre Dame Denies Recognition for Group Promoting Catholic Teaching on Marriage". Even worse, some surveys report that a plurality or majority of US Catholics hold positions (e.g., birth control, abortion and/or "gay marriage") that contradict the Church's teachings.
Then of course, there were the notorious sex misconduct scandals where some bishops exacerbated problems by reassigning "cured" rogue priests to unsuspecting parishes. The hierarchy seemed clueless in the scandal, like a deer in headlights; the mainstream media, which have never been Catholic-friendly, obsessively pursued the stories, and American Catholics made their displeasure known at the collection plate--even in dioceses not part of the problem.
Now I realize American Catholics amount to a fraction of the estimated 1.2B worldwide, but from my perspective I would focus on a few points:
- A "Back to Basics" Catholicism. We need a restoration of personal, not social action. I'm not questioning the Church's commitment to missions, charities, hospitals and schools. But these flourished in the pre-Vatican II days, when there was much more moral and spiritual discipline and focus on sin, repentance, prayer, and personal sacrifices (e.g., dietary). Rediscover the old rituals, liturgy, chants, etc.; as a child, I visited old cathedrals that seemed suggestive of God's presence. I'm struck by how many Catholic libertarians prefer a more traditionalist approach; I'm not suggesting forcing a more traditional approach down their throat, but give them the option.
- Don't Pander to the Faithful or the Media. Stop telling the faithful what you think they want to hear. In many cases, they aren't sure of what they want or need spiritually. You are their spiritual leader, not simply their friend. We don't respect weak, equivocating leadership. Many are called, few are chosen. Reaffirm traditional faith and morals; if you lose fringe Catholics whom subordinate their faith to their politics, so be it: Jesus lost followers because His words were considered too hard to accept.
- Re-Discover Classical Liberalism. Free markets and free trade have been generally related higher income and wealth, a rising standard of living, greater consumer equality; over the past few decades, we have seen millions of people in China and India lifted out of poverty as economic policies have been liberalized. We generally see more respect for human rights in countries with liberalized economies, and countries are less liable to attack their trading partners. The Pope's focus on income inequality is wrong-headed; first, the economy is not a zero-sum game; second, relative incomes are different from absolute incomes. I can live comfortably without the resources of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, even though their incomes dwarf mine. Gates and Buffett succeed by marketing goods and services consumers want. Consumers include all people, including the poor. The poor do not benefit from the inflation resulting from central bank money printing and corrupt State interventions in the economy. The principle of Subsidiarity is totally consistent with a pro-liberty perspective.
- The Issue Is Not the Upper 1%, but a Materialistic, Hedonistic Culture. How many of the faithful are the 1%? They are not the ones whom explain empty churches, why 40% of births in the US are illegitimate and millions of preborn babies are killed, the lack of modesty in dress. For many middle class, religion is maybe an hour they cut out of their busy schedules every Sunday; every night they are exposed to mainstream television shows where extramarital sex is the norm, where virtuous behavior and traditional values are mocked. We live in an age of political correctness and victimization, of unsustainable entitlement and social welfare programs, where the number of recipients almost exceeds the number of gainfully employed. The social welfare industry actually encourages dependency on the State vs. honest hard work. "Progressive" policies undermine individual autonomy and human dignity; they weigh down an economy, discourage innovation, investment and job-producing economic growth. A God-centered life is not based on a Politics of Envy; envy is a vice, not a virtue. Voluntary giving is virtuous; State taxation for redistribution is not only inefficient but outright theft. The Church must not confuse goals with implementation. If you cultivate a good man, fearful of God, he will do righteous things. Focus on the externals, and you reinforce the proud Pharisee, whom makes a show of being seen at the Temple and boasts of his public contributions to the needy. External behavior can be manipulative in nature.
- The State Is Your Enemy, Not Your Partner. The State is a monopoly of force; it can be a threat to its own citizens, to those in other States. It can restrict religious liberty, even impose regulations inconsistent with Church faith and morals. Don't let yourself be co-opted by the self-interested State. Look at the major problems in the world, like war. These are the consequences of Statist authority. The free market peacefully competes to address what consumers want--say, food, energy, and water.
- Crackdown on Rogue Clerics and Institutions. I am a firm believer in a free market of ideas. But when I went to a Catholic college, I expected a traditional perspective, not a counterculture of feminist or Marxist ideology, political correctness, theologians thumbing their nose at the Vatican, etc.
