Back in 1999, The Weekly Standard ran one of my favorite cover lines ever: The New Europe: Menace or Farce? I often think of that question when I watch Pope Francis.
It’s only been two and a half years since Francis assumed the chair of St. Peter, yet he’s already compiled an entire dossier’s worth of . . . interesting . . . incidents.
For instance, the Holy Father seems to have a habit of appearing to endorse all sorts of left-wing political causes. There was the time he posed with environmental activists holding an anti-fracking T-shirt. And the time he posed for pictures holding a crucifix made from a hammer and a sickle. And the time he held up a poster calling for the British to hand the Falkland Islands back to Argentina. In each instance, the official Vatican response has been to suggest that Francis didn’t mean to endorse anything because he’ll pretty much smile and pick up anything you hand him, like some sort of consecrated Ron Burgundy.
But it isn’t always the spontaneous moments that cause confusion for Francis. There was a minor kerfuffle in August when an Italian gay activist, Francesca Pardi, wrote to the pope. Pardi, who is married to a woman, writes children’s books about homosexuality—you might think of her as the Italian Heather Has Two Mommies. Pardi—who is not Catholic—was upset after some Italian schools began (quite sensibly) excising her books from elementary school curricula. So she wrote to Francis to complain. And much to her surprise, she received a letter in return, from the Vatican’s secretary of State, writing on behalf of Francis. He said:
Enclosed was a papal blessing for Pardi and her wife. The Vatican, again, rushed to clarify that this was all just a big misunderstanding.
* * *
Pope Francis seems prone to misunderstanding on many subjects, but perhaps none so much as the field of economics. As Andrew Ferguson noted in reviewing Evangelii Gaudium, this pope tends to insist on notions that are factually untrue. For instance, “Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake.” Or that the benefits of free-market growth have “never been confirmed by the facts.” Note—the Holy Father is not saying that the free market has excesses, or that consumerism can debase the human person, or that the ruthlessness of markets can, left unchecked, lead to real evils. No. He is insisting that there is no factual evidence to support claims that free-market growth can be socially beneficial. It’s as if he does not know what the letters “GDP” stand for.
And truth be told, maybe he doesn’t. In 2013, Francis told an Italian magazine that “The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.” That might strike you as odd, but so be it.
A year later the pope took to Twitter—oh yes, he is an active Twitterer—to proclaim that “Inequality is the root of social evil.” Youth unemployment, geriatric solitude, inequality—evil, evil, evil.
And when confronted with the Syrian migration crisis now roiling Europe, the pope weighed in on that, too, this time commingling economics with ecology:
Yes: For Francis, Syria’s great problem isn’t a blood-thirsty autocracy which gasses its own citizens—it’s a “socio-economic system.” He then goes on to blame the great migration to Europe not merely on an unjust economic system, but on deforestation. The migrants are, he said, “the people who come from the country because they have been deforested.”
Such remarks make you wonder if the Holy Father has ever seen an aerial view of Syria—where the first thing he would notice is that the country has almost no trees. This is not a recent development.
But perhaps there is a medical explanation for such nonsense. After all, as he admitted to reporters back in July, “I am very allergic to economics.” Indeed.
* * *
Pope Francis has some interesting views about Catholic teachings, too. In January, he criticized Catholics who have what he considers too many children. “Some think, excuse me if I use the word, that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits—but no,” he said. The push-back from within the Church was hard enough that the pope apologized a week later.
He has never apologized for criticizing Catholics whom he deems to be “obsessed” with abortion, contraception, and gay marriage:
His message being . . . well, it’s not clear what, exactly. After all, in America, at least, the question of abortion seems somewhat important, since 55 million children have been killed in utero since 1973. And as for contraception and gay marriage, it is the U.S. government which is seeking to force its view of these regimes on the Catholic Church, and not the other way around. The pope’s position seems remarkably like blaming the victim.
As did his remarks following the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. Francis held forth saying, “Every religion has its dignity. I cannot mock a religion that respects human life and the human person.” And then he went somewhat further:
“There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others,” he said. “They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.”
As you might expect, a week later the Vatican rushed yet another spokesman out to clarify the real meaning of the Holy Father’s words because he absolutely, positively, didn’t mean what he said. Or didn’t say what he meant.
Or something.
* * *
Orthodox Catholics have disagreements with other views that Francis has promulgated, both formally and informally, on topics ranging from divorce and marriage to the management and behavior of his bishops to the subject of praying the rosary. These fights are unlikely to interest non-Catholics.
But as we try to sort out what Francis is, exactly—a menace to society and his Church, or a foolish, farcical dupe—it’s worth considering an amazing exchange he had with reporters last July during a flight from Asuncion to Rome:
Pope Francis: Thank you so much. It’s a good correction, thanks. You are right. It’s an error of mine not to think about this. I will make some comment but not to justify myself. You’re right. I have to think a bit.
The world is polarized. The middle class becomes smaller. The polarization between the rich and the poor is big. This is true. And, perhaps this has brought me not to take account of this, no? Some nations are doing very well, but in the world in general the polarization is seen. And, the number of poor is big. And why do I speak of the poor? Because they’re at the heart of the Gospel. And, I always speak from the Gospel on poverty, no? Even if it’s sociological. Then, on the middle class, there are some words that I’ve said, but a little in passing. But the common people, the simple people, the worker, that is a great value, no? But, I think you’re telling me about something I need to do. I need to do delve further into this magisterium. I thank you for your help.
And that was that. One gets the sense that the leader of the Roman Catholic Church understands neither the origins, nor the development, nor status of the middle class. He does not know who the middle class is, or what they do, or what challenges are facing them. By his own accounting, this 78-year-old man has never given this group of people—who comprise the vast majority of the developed world and are the ambition of the rest of the planet—any real thought.
It was an astonishing admission of provincialism. And in its way, it might tell us more about Francis than all the rest, combined.
Jonathan V. Last is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
