What if we listened to the Pope's call to action - And acted? Lisa Falkenberg, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
I imagined that somewhere, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, himself a Catholic, was listening and weighing the pope's message against politics as he leads a state with the nation's highest uninsured rate, a broken education system and child poverty at 30 percent. ''
At heart then, as you will find in most writings on the subject, the Left's rhapsody over the Pope is not due to the man's gentleness or supposed humility, but instead it's because his politics, such as they are, for the most part present a church-wielded stick in the eye to those on the Right.
We have a leftist Pope and all is right with the world, if only we would listen to him. If anything the Pope has given those on the left an air of moral legitimacy that they've been lacking since the rise of the moral majority and other values voter groups.
Christianity had left the left, abandoned it in the eyes of some. And while none of that was particularly true (authentic Religion should be apolitical, a question we should ask ourselves as the current Pope spent a lot of time in America lecturing political bodies) the myth of the "godless left" has been a hard mantle to shake.
Sure, there have been efforts in fits and starts. Locally Chris Bell told everyone who would listen that budgets were "moral documents" and nationally entitlements, and other programs "for the children", have been cast in quasi-religious terms by leftist groups and politicians, but the idea that God staked his ideological flag firmly on the right side was a hard argument for the left to counter, among those who really cared that is.
But now we have his Holiness espousing leftist ideas, some of them anyway, and progressive thinkers are enraptured by his tenderness. This provides, in their minds, moral cover for ideas like combating climate change, expanding the welfare state and funding groups like Planned Parenthood "for the children" (ignoring the fact that PP is, almost entirely, anti-children up to a vague point of 'viability').
The problem with all of this is that it reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Biblical tradition of governance, including the fact that God, per the Old and New Testaments, is not a fan of big, overreaching government. In fact, in the book of Judges, the 'ideal' government established by God to govern the Israeli people was a theocracy with a flat 10% tax rate.
When God established Israel after the exodus from Egypt it was a morality based, free market system governed by Judges attached to, and governed by, the Church. The Synagogue was the seat of power, the same Judges were responsible for conflict resolution, defense, and generally establishing the social order. When the Israelis decided that they wanted a King, to mimic the surrounding powers, God, through the prophets, warned against such actions by warning that a King will increase taxes, take their sons away to war, and take the spoils of their labor to feed his court. Despite all of this the people said (paraphrasing) "Yes, we get all that, but we still want a King".
While I am not a Catholic, I have a deep respect for the Catholic adherence to orthodoxy, and their honor of reverence when it comes to worship. I also think that the leadership of the Church is deeply flawed. The reality is that the Church is one of the richest corporations, and landholders, in the world. This brings into question the sincerity of the Pope when he addresses the following:
- Homelessness: If you've ever had the gift of visiting the Vatican you will be stunned by it's opulence. Buildings are marble with gold plating on almost everything, the wealth is stunning to behold. St. Peter's Basilica is one of the prettiest rooms in all of the world. You will also be shocked by the number of poor and infirm pan-handling to tourists around the seat of Catholic power. There are thousands of poor and destitute who park themselves daily within eye shot of the Pope. They panhandle, beg from tourists, and look to the Vatican for aid that it, seemingly, does not provide.
- Climate Change: One of the funnier things Pope Francis said was that air conditioning was the equivalent of oppression. Again, if you've been to the Vatican you will be struck by the fact that they have excellent AC themselves (in certain parts) The Vatican Vaults being one of the most climate controlled interior spaces in the world. While I understand that there are priceless Holy relics contained within, do those overstep the plight of the poor?
- Capitalism: There is nothing in the Bible that speaks on the evils of capitalism. In fact, the barter system espoused by Israel was wholly capitalist in nature. Even the advent of the Shekel was to move commerce. While it's true that Jesus did speak about the difficulties of a rich man getting to Heaven (camel through the eye of a needle) that was more a warning against a personal lack of charity than an anti-capitalist screed. The idea of the 'evil merchant' really did not appear in literature until the days of Chaucer. It should be noted that the only character more foul in his books was the Pardoner, sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
None of this should mean that I consider the Catholic Church to be evil. Far from it. In most instances I believe that the motivations of the Church are good. However, like government the Catholic Church is an institution of man. I realize that many will view this as a sacrilege but it's true. There's no Biblical support for a labyrinthine, bureaucratic Religious order emanating from inside Rome to coordinate the global spread of Christianity. The early Church, as described in the New Testament, contained individual churches who, worked together closely for sure, but were largely independent in their daily operations.
The point I'm trying to make with this is that the Church is flawed. Just as every construct of man is flawed. We are imperfect beings and those of us who are Christians try and fail every day to emulate God. But this doesn't mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. Quite the opposite is true. While the message of Evangelicals is flawed as well (too much focus on wealth, not enough on charity) the overall idea behind Christianity is still viable today. For sure, there are challenges in the modern world, obstacles that require thought, prayer and meditation. Climate Change is one, and how to reconcile it with the economic needs of the poor. Charity, and it's role in an increasingly entitled world, is another. There are many more for which Christians are struggling today. Sexual identity, the role of women in leadership, divorce, abortion and the pervasive creep of crudeness and vulgarity in modern society.
The Pope's message is one that can help all of us, Catholic or no, possibly come to terms with this. But to fully understand it we have to accept both the parts of his message with which we agree, and those parts where our political beliefs find us at cross-purposes. As with many things, the goals are the same: Reduce poverty, increase economic opportunity, live on a clean planet.
Where we disagree is how to get there. The Pope has his ideas, and it is correct that they be included in the conversation. What is incorrect is acting as if they are the end of the debate. Because adopting that stance, as Ms. Falkenberg does in her article, means that you also have to accept and encourage those parts with which you disagree as well. Based on the abortion-related prose later in her column, Ms. Falkenberg is not willing to entertain those points.
Which is where her argument falls apart.
