I admit — this feels like homework. Not in the sense that I feel obliged to write about the Pope, as a Patheos blogger, because I have gotten myself trapped in blogging, it’s not fun anymore, whine, whine, whine. Not really. More in the sense that feel obliged, not as a blogger, but as a Catholic, to read the speech, after having seen a steady stream of opinion on it on facebook and twitter.
What was the speech about? Here are my notes:
He says he’s addressing Congress, and the “entire people of the United States,” the workers, the elderly, and the young people.
He structures his speech around for Americans with key anniversaries: Abraham (150th anniversary of his assination), Martin Luther King (50th anniversary of the Selma March), Dorothy Day (anniversary = ???), and Thomas Merton (100th anniversary of his birth).
Lincoln represents freedom, but, he says, “Building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of subsidiarity and solidarity,” and then says that “A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.” He sounds a bit like a Jedi knight — even in the name of fighting evil, one must not become consumed by anger. Or something like that, maybe.
Then he talks about King and his “dream” and segues into the dreams of immigrants, and speaks in vague terms about the fate of indigenous peoples, and then says we must not turn our backs on our “neighbors.”
He references the refugee crisis in Europe, and the northward flow from Mexico to the U.S., and says, “We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal.” Open immigration supporters will view this as a call for amnesty, but it feels too vague to label this a direct call for a legalization program. In any case, it sounds much more directed at the much more immediate situation in Europe.
Francis then pulls out the Golden Rule, and an incidental, obligatory, “protect and defend human life at every state of development,” and a paragraph on death penalty opposition, and some words on rehabilitation (which feel out of place when we’re talking about the worst of the worst, who will not be released in any case — unless he simply means the opportunity for said prisoner to repent?).
He then mentions Dorothy Day, but, again, without any special anniversary connected with her. (I could find nothing in her wikipedia entry, either.) And referencing her poverty-fighting efforts, he says, “How much progress has been made in this area in so many parts of the world! How much has been done in these first years of the third millennium to raise people out of extreme poverty!” and “It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth. The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable. “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good” (Laudato Si’, 129).” Then he calls upon Americans to use technology to create “another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral.”
Francis then moves on to Merton, “a promoter of peace between peoples and religions,” and says, “I would like to recognize the efforts made in recent months to help overcome historic differences linked to painful episodes of the past.” He doesn’t mention specifics, so I’m guessing that he is referring to the Iran nuclear deal.
He then goes back to the arms trade, offering what appears to be a too-facile explanation of war as due to greedy arms dealers.
He’s now finished with his Four Americans, and moves on to the World Meeting of Families, making oblique reference to gay marriage, and perhaps the larger numbers of cohabitating couples and single parents. Of families themselves, he then focuses on “the young,” many of whom “seem disoriented and aimless, trapped in a hopeless maze of violence, abuse and despair.” Is he talking about children? He seems more to be referring to young adults, which doesn’t really fit with his theme of family, as this is the age group that doesn’t participate in family life, neither as mothers and fathers, nor as dependent children. And then he spends two sentences fretting that some young people are pressured not to start a family because they have no hope for the future, and others are having too much fun to start a family. Where did this come from? Has he spent too much time in Italy (fertility rate 1.42 children per woman)?
Then some few closing words, and a closing sentence, “ It is my desire that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream.” What does this mean? One would expect that last sentence to express the hope that the next generation may experience the fulfillment of those dreams. But is he really talking simply about maximizing the population, that is, that we should admit as immigrants as many people as we possibly can without the country collapsing?
So all in all, it just didn’t do anything for me. It’s not just about the wishy-washiness of the abortion reference. There we too many cryptic, vague references. His schema of the Four Americans didn’t really work for me, and felt too disjointed. His buzzwords of subsidiarity and solidarity don’t resonate with me. Was this supposed to rally his supporters to action? To convert skeptics?
But I’ve now done my homework. Good night!
Morning update: everyone’s plucking sound bites to talk about. But a speech like this is, or ought to be, about more than just ticking off boxes of topics and connecting together a series of grand statements. Do you see something bigger? Did it speak to you? Help you to see something in a different light? What did I miss?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In