A Moral Dilemma?

On Friday, September 13, 2024 CNN carried a story about Pope Francis’ view of America’s presidential race:

“Pope Francis on Friday described the choice US voters must make in the presidential election as one between the ‘lesser of two evils,’ deeming former President Donald Trump’s anti-migrant policies and Vice President Kamala Harris’ support of abortion rights as both being ‘against life.’

“’One must choose the lesser of two evils. Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know,’ Francis said during a press conference on the papal plane, referring to Harris and Trump. ‘Everyone with a conscience should think on this and do it.’”

There is a reason that in the over two thousand year history of the Catholic Church there has never been a Jesuit pope – that is until the current Pope Francis, SJ. But before beginning this discussion let us acknowledge there can be a vast difference between the teaching of the Church and the men who run it. It is the reason that it is so difficult to change the dogma of the Church. (For those of you forced to endure a teachers union led education in the Portland Public School System, “dogma” refers to a set of uncompromising principles that remain unchanged over time.) Far too often those who have turned their backs on the Church have done so, not because of the fundamental teachings of the Church but rather because of the acts – often hypocritical acts of its clergy. While the members of the clergy come and go, the dogma of the Church remains unchanged. It is a difficult path for the faithful to accept and practice the teachings of the Church while witnessing its clergy, including the Jesuits, ignore them in both word and deed.

Which brings us to the reasons why there has never been a Jesuit pope until now. The reason is quite simple. The Jesuits, since their inception, have insisted on prying into the political affairs of nations – usually to enhance the coffers of the Society of Jesus and often at the expense of the Church’s teachings. There are periods in the Church’s history when the Superior General, the leader of the Society of Jesus, openly challenged the authority of the Pope, including obedience to Papal Authority. And as any political group, the Jesuits bowed to all the attributes/weaknesses of many politicians and government bureaucrats. I doubt that the Jesuits invented “parsing of words” or “dissembling” but they did polish both to a high sheen.

You may remember that during the 70’s the concept of liberation theology was touted by many of the younger members of the clergy – especially in South America which itself was going through a revolutionary period. No one embraced it with greater enthusiasm than the Jesuits who saw it as an opportunity to re-establish their prominence in revolutionary governments that were set to replace the existing authoritative governments that had previously turned away the Jesuits from positions of influence. In theory liberation theology was an attempt to wed the precepts of socialism with the teaching of the church. But as socialism began to collapse, so did the concept of liberation theology. The reason being that socialism in theory is virtually impossible in organized society and socialism in practice always winds up in the same place – the poor get poorer, and the power and wealth is concentrated in the leaders of the socialist government – think Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, etc.

Like many South American clergy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio navigated his way through the mazes of both Church and Argentine politics to become first the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and the Argentina’s principal Cardinal before becoming Pope Francis. The influence of the liberation theology still lingers with the Pope but describing him as a Socialist is probably overdoing it. But he is influenced by socialism and he is a self-described anti-capitalist. As a result of the latter he finds America’s successful pursuit of capitalism to be the principle cause of unrest, impoverishment, and deprivation in the world. That would put him in the same class of intellectuals as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). And like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, that clouds his judgment on most thing in mainstream America.

So, it is not surprising, nevertheless extraordinarily stupid, to equate abortion and those who demand taxpayer funded abortion on demand with the protection of a country’s borders and the resistance to illegal entry. And the reason is pretty straight forward. Since the United States Supreme Court created the constitutional right to abortion out of thin air (penumbra) over 65 million children have been killed in the womb as a result of abortions. During that same period of time the exact number of people that have died as a result of America securing its border (or attempting to secure it borders) is exactly – not estimated – exactly zero. No matter how you cut it there is no equivalency. Every country has the right to, and does, protect its borders – including the Vatican. As an August 29. 2024 Zenit article describes the Vatican’s approach to illegal immigration into the Vatican:

“The Vatican’s approach to immigration and access is one of the strictest in Europe, reflecting its need to safeguard its small population and the sanctity of its grounds. Unauthorized immigration is not tolerated, and all access to the Vatican is carefully controlled. The laws governing entry are explicit: permits are required and strictly regulated, with access only granted for specific, justified reasons. In alignment with Catholic teaching, the Vatican upholds the principle that civil authorities may regulate immigration in the interest of the common good, a stance echoed by Pope John Paul II in his calls to prevent illegal immigration and combat exploitation.” (Emphasis supplied)

So, in meddling in the affairs of state, Pope Francis has proven himself to be a poor judge of “equivalency” and a hypocrite* when it comes to protecting a nation’s borders against illegal immigration. But meddling is the favorite pastime of the Jesuits and Pope Francis is no different than the average parish priest.

Perhaps we would all be better served if Pope Francis cleaned his own house before meddling in the affairs of others. In this instance I refer to the ongoing sexual abuse of children by members of the clergy. Offering letters to the clergy and assurances to the laity is far short of doing something about protecting the children. Having failed at any attempts to date, I would encourage Pope Francis to treat such sexual assaults by members of the clergy in the same manner as similar assaults by the average citizen – immediately notify law enforcement and let their investigations, prosecutions and penalties proceed without interference. Perhaps if members of the clergy knew they were facing criminal investigations and penalties instead of clergical protection they would be more circumspect about abusing the children and the trust they have been given.

A moral dilemma? Only for a Jesuit.

_____________________________________

I will never understand how Pope Francis can embrace President Joe Biden and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) despite their decades of advocacy for taxpayer funded abortions on demand and then chastise former President Trump for doing his duty to protect our country against an onslaught of illegal immigration. Somewhere in my Jesuit education I missed that part about hypocrisy.