Why do so many conservatives oppose Pope Francis?

I guess I’m a bit of a masochist.

The moment before I press “enter” to begin my first search of the day, I pause and ask myself, “do I enjoy misery?”

I question my sanity in this way because I know that as soon as my screen illuminates with bolded headlines, my heart will sink and my forehead tighten. I breathe out a heavy sigh.

“Pope Francis: Communist, or Antichrist?”

“Pope Francis: Most Dangerous Human Being on the Planet”

“Pope Francis: False Prophet, come to America”

I’m quite serious. It seems that even the vicar of Christ can be given such preposterous titles left normally for men like Adolph Hitler and Henry Kissinger. Though, as I recover from my abrupt laughter, I realize that I’m not incredibly surprised.

Conservative radio host Michael Savage declared on the June 16 edition of his show: “The pope is a danger to the world.” He continued by calling the Pope a “great deceiver,” “stealth Marxist,” “eco-wolf in pope’s clothing,” and compared him to the false prophet in the book of Revelation “directing mankind to worship the Antichrist.” Savage concluded that “we are living in global tyranny right now.”

The next day, Rush Limbaugh, another prominent conservative radio host, expressed similar sentiments, claiming that the Pope was aligning himself with those on the left who wished to “leave everybody … living equally in misery,” and confirming the claim that Francis was, indeed, a communist here to aid in America’s undoing.

Fox News contributor Adam Shaw wrote in his December 2013 article, “Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us all.” He effectively confused the compassionate Francis with the less popular and less effective Benedict: “As a Catholic, I do hope Francis’ papacy is a successful one, but from his first months he seems hell-bent on a path to undo the great work of Benedict XVI…and to repeat critical mistakes of the past.” Ah! Yes, critical mistakes. The most charitable church in the world, instead of focusing its energy and resources on the poor, should work diligently to sweep more molestation scandals under the rug, and spend the bulk of its sermons on the evils of contraception.

According to Shaw, “like Obama, Francis loves attacking straw men.” I assume that Shaw is refering to the Pope’s Laudato si’ – an Encyclical letter offering a scathing indictment of wealth inequality, unfettered capitalism, and their effects on the environment and on the poor.

Admittedly, I am not a religious person, and am certainly no Catholic (though I too enjoy singing liturgy and a nice stout beer over fried catfish), and so I have never paid much attention to papal affairs. But when I realized that a prominent Christian figure was speaking out against corporate greed, wealth inequality, and our rapacious attitude toward the earth, (subjects I care very much about), I knew that I should see what the man had to say.

I spent the better half of August pouring over that monumental encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality which his holiness promulgated the month before. The letter is expected to play a key role in the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference this November and will most likely be a pivotal point of debate as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up here at home.

A quick summary of Laudato si’:

1. Climate change is real, and it’s getting worse. The Pope writes, “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day…If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.”
2. Human beings are a major contributor to climate change. While 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, some believe that human beings don’t contribute to it, or contribute very little. The science brutally suggests otherwise, and Pope Francis—a trained chemist—says human beings do have an effect on the Earth: “We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.”
3. Climate change disproportionately affects the poor. Climate change’s worst impact, Pope Francis says, “will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry.” This environmental inequality creates a strange economic phenomenon: Poor countries are often financially indebted to rich countries. The world has what Pope Francis calls a “social debt towards the poor … because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity.”
4. Unfettered consumerism is at the root of the problem. In the Encyclical, Francis is broadly critical of global consumer culture and attributes this to environmental degradation: “These problems are closely linked to a throwaway culture which affects the excluded just as it quickly reduces things to rubbish… We have not yet managed to adopt a circular model of production capable of preserving resources for present and future generations, while limiting as much as possible the use of non-renewable resources, moderating their consumption, maximizing their efficient use, reusing and recycling them.”
5. We can and must make things better. Some of those who study climate change believe this process to be irreversible, too far gone. But Francis—whose first major letter was entitled Joy of the Gospel—says he doesn’t believe we should be robbed of hope. “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start.”
6. Individuals can help, but politicians must lead in the charge. Francis argues that personal responsibility is an important step toward reversing climate change, but that political and structural transformations are needed for lasting change. “Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies.”

Beautifully written, unquestionably informed, scientifically accurate, and theologically sound. So why the steady stream of uproar and objection? How could a pronouncement so distinctly characteristic of the Bible’s more rational and cohesive messages – taking care of the earth, improving the lives of the poor, healing the sick, refraining from idolatry – be so swiftly and boisterously decried? By the party, I should add, (as I noted in my earlier article about “Republican Jesus”), mainly consisting of evangelical Christians? Why the apparent contradiction?

The answer, I think, is simply that Francis has broken from too many elements in the Republican Party platform. First there were affirming statements about homosexuality. Then an indictment of unfettered capitalism and trickle-down economics. And now climate change. That, it seems, has gone too far. Francis has put conservative American Christians in the position of having to choose between the teachings of Jesus and the GOP. It should surprise no one that they’ve replaced one holy text – the Bible – with Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.

Since the Reagan era, many influential neoconservative Christians have gone out of their way to make the case for the intrinsic compatibility between biblical teachings and the GOP. For Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak, George Weigel, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and their allies, the GOP served as the mechanism for injecting Christian moral and social ideas into American political culture — while those ideas, in turn, electrified the Republican Party, lending theological gravity and purpose to its agenda and priorities.

In these hands, the Republican platform became more than a proemial mishmash of positions thrown haphazardly together for contingent historical reasons. Rather, it was a unified statement of High Moral Truth rooted in Thomas Aquinas’ medieval theology of natural law — the most highly developed outgrowth of Christian civilization.

Opposition to abortion was wound up with hostility to euthanasia, bestiality with same-sex marriage, and support for domestic policies that encouraged traditional family life — with all of these flowing from an overarching commitment to a “culture of life” and resistance to a “culture of death.” This commitment also justified an assertive American foreign policy that championed freedom, imposed global order, and upheld the highest standard of justice. And of course, the vision of the free society that guided American foreign policy was one with relatively low taxes and minimal government regulations in which the burden of charity and other support for the poor falls primarily on individuals and local communities.

Deregulation and individual responsibility – the battle cries of conservative religious America. So what about it? How has “Reaganomics” played out thus far? For the wealthiest in our nation? Fantastically. For everyone else? America has seen its middle class all but disintegrate, while almost all new wealth goes to the top 10%. America has more convicted prisoners than any country in the world, has the most expensive and least effective healthcare of any developed nation, is the only country in the world that does not guarantee medical leave, has one in three children living in poverty, and causes more environmental destruction than anyone (except maybe China) made possible precisely by the sort of “free-trade” measures Republican politicians endlessly promise will make the world a better place.

But Christianity doesn’t actually conform to these dogmas of unfettered capitalism, trickle down economics, and social exclusivity, and so conservatives fear the progressive, God-fearing, “radical” Pope. Just as the Romans did when they encountered Jesus of Nazareth.

History repeats itself.

 

---

About Sean Bresnahan

Sean Bresnahan is an independant journalist from Omaha, Nebraska. He writes and reflect on cultural issues at awayfromrome.com.