Posted on 09/28/2015 7:13:23 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
Pope Francis has finished his U.S. visit and his message went well beyond the Catholic faithful. As he declared in the recent encyclical Laudato Si, he was addressing “every person living on this planet.”
The Pontiff’s predominant appeal is spiritual, not political. His commitment to the poor and our shared world is obvious. Most people yearn for meaning in their lives which no government can provide.
However, the papal visit generated controversy because Pope Francis appears to be a man of the Left.
Of course, religious imperatives may have political implications. For instance, Christian Scripture and church tradition require concern for the poor and environment. But there is no specific “Christian” answer to the many social ills.
Unfortunately, the Holy Father sometimes blurs the line between the spiritual and the political. The Pope overestimates the wisdom and efficacy of politics while minimizing the power and virtue of markets.
Consider environmental issues. Stewardship is an important Christian responsibility. However, the relationship between humans and the world around them always has been complex.
The pontiff assumes the worst regarding the environment. Yet much of the environmental news actually is quite good.
Important environmental problems remain, of course. However, capitalism helps answer even the toughest questions. For instance, greater economic development and innovation provide the means to solve often complex problems. Markets also promote efficient trade-offs, highlighting the benefits and costs of various policies.
Yet in Laudato Si the Pontiff appeared to suggest the common good yields only one correct environmental standard. However, facts are not a matter of faith.
For instance, the consensus that the climate is warming does not extend to how much and how fast temperatures are likely to rise, as well as how great the likely social impact and how best to cope with those effects. Even if one believes temperatures are rising and the consequences will be serious, there still are many possible solutions.
The most cost-effective strategy is adaptation, adjusting to specific problems. What is best is a matter of man’s wisdom rather than God’s commandment.
When markets do not operate and property rights do not exist, some government action is necessary to ensure environmental protection. Nevertheless, policymakers must recognize the inherent infirmities of politics. There is no guarantee that increasing the power of parliaments, bureaucracies, and courts will solve environmental or other social problems.
Yet the Pope in Laudato Si largely ignored the government’s own woeful environmental record. Not everyone who claims to represent the common good does so; politicians and environmentalists are no more virtuous than businessmen and conservatives.
Perhaps the most important trade-off ignored by the Pope is the importance of the free economy in providing wealth and opportunity—which improves the chance of living a fulfilling life—for the poor and disadvantaged.
Thus, while the pontiff’s moral judgments deserve respect, his economic opinions warrant less consideration. His formative economic experience came in Argentina, a statist kleptocracy which enshrined injustice. The principal lesson from Argentina and similar systems should be the importance of rejecting political restrictions on the economy.
As I wrote for the American Spectator: “Economic liberty, that is, freedom to work, invest, trade, and create is an outgrowth of the wondrous creativity with which God has infused mankind.” Still, the pontiff helpfully reminded us that there is far more to life than economic growth.
Pope Francis deserved a warm welcome in the U.S. He is an important moral and spiritual leader who speaks to people’s deepest human needs.
However, Americans should respond more skeptically when the pontiff moves from spiritual to political matters. His status as the Vicar of Christ gives him no special qualification as a political pundit.
Since he’s a spiritual leader he should stick with that.
How can you trust his soul when his mind is so distorted?
Good words of advice.
Judging by the popularity of this one, who espouses “Yes We Can” Obama-like stances, I think most of them seem to be looking for a political leader who will give politics a thin feel-good spiritual gloss.
The left obviously does
Leave out the Jesus stuff which the pope did, and then he’s so COOL
It was obvious the media was worshipping the pope, not the spiritual
And the pope played to the house
People should just ignore this false teacher in all cases.
The pop is also head of state.
This article also left out Jesus. Typical.
Can I choose None of the Above?
I can’t wait until this Pope Fever is over.
Not this one.
In believers’ lives the Holy Spirit has full, immediate, and universal influence.... “now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
Persuading men and women that Christ the Lord left a mortal man to be His vicar on earth attempts to gainsay the very purpose of Christ Jesus......therefore the Pope appears certainly to fit the role of political pundit which is what this Pope appears to enjoy.
As a side note:...(The tact of the enemy of God has been and still is to introduce 'other religions as equally valid' and a uniting with them 'to destroy the truth in Christianity'.)
{Since he’s a spiritual leader he should stick with that.}
We are to believe he is a political leader because he is the head of the vast geopolitically important “city”/state of The Vatican.
Of course the leftists love a pro-abortion Pope.
Pray America wakes
As a Head of State (Vatican City) he has political position. His position as a religious leader that is a mater of faith and understanding of the New Testament, as such to me he is just a head of a very small state.
I did...
as a “spiritual” he proved he doesn’t read or believe or preach the Bible and is an atheist/humanist and not a Christian..
A writer who did his homework thus writes with knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.