Thinking About Francis’s Message

I suppose I ought to express my thoughts on Pope Francis’s visits to Washington and New York. I’ll start with what to me was the most nonsensical headline for an article on Francis’s address to Congress from the New York Post: “Pope Francis is big on ideals — but small on solutions”. They’re saying that as though it were a bad thing. Francis has doctorates in philosophy and theology. The more closely he hews to the ends rather than the means, the stronger the ground on which he stands. I celebrate Francis’s humility, simplicity, and his call for us to heed what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

In concluding his First Inaugural Address with that phrase, Lincoln was elaborating on Charles Dickens:

The thoughts of worldly men are for ever regulated by a moral law of gravitation, which, like the physical one, holds them down to earth. The bright glory of day, and the silent wonders of a starlit night, appeal to their minds in vain. There are no signs in the sun, or in the moon, or in the stars, for their reading. They are like some wise men, who, learning to know each planet by its Latin name, have quite forgotten such small heavenly constellations as Charity, Forbearance, Universal Love, and Mercy, although they shine by night and day so brightly that the blind may see them; and who, looking upward at the spangled sky, see nothing there but the reflection of their own great wisdom and book-learning…

“It is curious to imagine these people of the world, busy in thought, turning their eyes towards the countless spheres that shine above us, and making them reflect the only images their minds contain…So do the shadows of our own desires stand between us and our better angels, and thus their brightness is eclipsed.

(from Barnaby Rudge) who in turn was quoting Shakespeare (Othello).

I agree wholeheartedly with Francis that we should shelter refugees, be better stewards of the environment, be more frugal in our use of the earth’s resources than we are, and take better care of the poor. But I also agree somewhat with this passage from Rich Lowry’s article cited above:

The questions are usually one of means, rather than ends, and of practicalities. The pope says we should respond to immigrants humanely and justly. OK. The United States welcomes more than a million legal immigrants here annually, and they are treated so humanely and justly that tens of millions more would be happy to come. But the United States doesn’t have an open-ended obligation to import foreigners without reference to the interests of the people already living here.

Also, don’t forget the wellbeing of the people left behind in the countries that are producing large numbers of migrants (eliding over the distinctions among refugees, economic migrants, and just plain rent-seekers).

I think that Peggy Noonan has the pope about right here:

The Francis I love is against materialism because he knows it is hollow and soul-crushing. He knows wealth and power are a moral hazard. He does not want man reduced to a commodity. He is for the little guy. He opposes the throwaway culture in which the old and the vulnerable are expendable. He wants you to be a saint, not a Scrooge.

He wades into the great spiritual questions.

That pope has captured the imagination of the world.

Is what he does merely symbolic? Nothing at his level is merely symbolic. He is acting in a Christlike way: His actions are lessons, reminders, intimations. Inspirations.

The less lovable pope is—well, and I say this still with love, Uncle Frank in the attic. This is the one who endorses secular political agendas, who castigates capitalism in language that is both imprecise and heavily loaded. He doesn’t, actually, seem to know a lot about capitalism or markets, or even what economic freedom has given—and is giving—his own church. For one small example, the other day Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group gave $40 million to the Catholic schools of New York, meaning he is giving his personal wealth to pay for the education of children, many of whom are recent immigrants and some of whom sleep in cars. Last I looked Mr. Schwarzman was not a monk or a mystic but a businessman in private equity. This is not abusing, ignoring or dehumanizing the poor. This is lifting them up, helping them in a concrete way that will change their lives.

and I welcome this from the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

In the Americas “thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities,” the pope said. “Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal.”

The pope’s call to a common humanity is much-needed, but to our ears the most striking word in that passage is “north.” Here is the Latin American pope acknowledging that the migrants are moving north to the United States, not the other way around. This is the same United States that practices the capitalist economics the pope has excoriated on so many other occasions. There must be something moral to free-market economics if it creates so much opportunity that attracts so many of the world’s poor.

The first sentence in the second paragraph is fine; I think the balance of the paragraph goes well beyond anything that Francis has said or intends because his focus is on the ends rather than the means. Identifying the most appropriate and efficient means for accomplishing those ends is a task left to secular leaders, leaders who I might add are not stepping up to their responsibilities.

There is also a conundrum with which Francis has yet to come to terms. Why isn’t there a responsibility reciprocal to the responsibility to provide shelter to refugees to work towards changing the countries from which they are fleeing? How about economic migrants? That 10% of Mexico’s population has left Mexico for the United States isn’t an indictment of our system but of theirs. Where are Mexico’s responsibilities in his thinking?

I also think that those American politicians who see Francis as a political ally should guess again. He isn’t a fool. I seriously doubt that his idea of helping the poor means income redistribution from the rich in America to the middle class in America (most of what current policy does) but from America to poorer countries. If they think that’s a viable platform, they should try running on it. Two-thirds of the poorest people in the world live in just five countries: India, China, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. India isn’t poor because America is rich and making Americans poorer will do little to help poor Indians. That so many of the people in those five countries are desperately poor points to serious economic and social dysfunction (if not malfunction) in those countries.

As it turns out (and as I have documented before) Americans give more to the poor overseas both overall and per capita than all but a very few countries. Unlike our European cousins we don’t do it solely through the government but in a manner consistent with our society: through a combination of government aid, aid from various private social services organization, and person-to-person assistance. We can and should do more but we should also maintain better stewardship of the aid we give. There’s truth in the wisecrack that foreign aid is poor people in rich countries contributing to rich people in poor countries. Means are important as well as ends.

Finally, there is something of which I think many lose track. Francis’s views are a seamless garment. If you pick and choose among them to find those you like, you’re creating a parody of his message. As Paul Kengor notes:

What does this mean? It means you shouldn’t cherry-pick this pope. You can’t grab this or that statement that fits your personal political-ideological preferences and think you have the full picture. The Francis picture has many shades.

This pope is neither liberal nor conservative. This pope is Catholic.