There has been a great deal of speculation over the comparison between Bibi Netanyahu’s address to congress and that of Pope Francis. In fact there is very little to compare. Netanyahu’s address was a political sales pitch fostered by the leaders of congress. It was meant as a direct mark of disrespect to our President. Netanyahu’s motives were self-serving and in the sense that he wanted a result that was contrary to the universal good, greedy.
The Pope’s message, which has been classified, by certain members of the far right, before they heard the address, as political, was anything but. In fact Francis’ message was, in most respects, as universal as mankind. He searched for no political goal but for a universal acceptance of the rights of man, and man’s responsibility for the planet we live on. This is in line with the formal teaching of every legitimate religion on the planet, and although it brings up political issues, its source is in no way political.
If the Pope spoke in defense of the planet and its ecology he did so without political motivation but in the sense of mankind needing a safe place to live. If he spoke in terms of a living wage for workers, he did so in the sense that the bible speaks to the same and that Jesus Christ often did as well. The reference on all issues was always to the moral responsibility we all have to those around us.
This column is neither a believer in nor a follower of any religion but it absolutely recognizes the concept of moral good and man’s responsibility to his fellow man and to the planet that we all live on.
Preserving the planet is not a political act. It is a moral responsibility, and those who deny for their own profit, the realities of climate change, are denying their responsibility to the planet we live on and the people who inhabit it, simply for greed. The same is true for the barons of business whose skills and entrepreneurial abilities go very far in making this country the success that it is and enable those who work for them to enjoy a full rich life. But when those same barons place outrageous profits before the well being of their employees they are acting immorally and this is wrong. How much is enough? Is it morally right for the corporate baron to spend millions on his personal lifestyle, while his employees live in poverty and their children go hungry? If your answer is anything but “No,” you are in big trouble and this is Francis’ point.
The subject matter of the Pope’s words have only to do with politics in so far as one of our political parties appears to be backing positions that take no responsibility for this planet or those who inhabit it; that see no moral responsibility for its dismissal of its fellow man or his ability to live a full rich life.
Francis’ message is one of love. Love yourself but love your neighbor more. Pursue your goals but not to an extent where that pursuit endangers those around you. His message is the same one that every moral entity has delivered since the planet evolved. It’s time we all started listening. You don’t have to believe in any religion or even in God to understand the meaning of the moral good. It’s all about not being a greedy pig. It is the same no matter where it is applied. It’s the same for the fight against fossil fuels, low wages, unsafe working conditions, illegal wars, unjust application of law, bigotry, misogyny or a thousand other wrongs that are part of our daily lives. It is the result of some man wanting more than his fair share.
But what is one’s fair share? Every fair share is not the same. Fair share means, every man’s to his ability to achieve and contribute. The rich have often worked harder and contributed more and so they are entitled to more but not so much more that others must go without.
There have been some significant objections to the Pope speaking to congress. I understand that one congressman boycotted the speech, as did a trio of Catholic Supreme Court Justices. I wonder if any of them attended Bibi’s rant. Let’s understand that Bibi wanted something from us. Francis only wanted to extend a message of our responsibilities as he understands them.
Why did this congress invite the Pope, a religious leader, to address it; especially considering that many members had strong political objections to much of what he would say? To tell you the truth I’m surprised that they did. It seems that for once, O’Connell and Boehner did the right thing even it if wasn’t to their advantage. Or maybe it was. Maybe it will help in some small way to mask the reputation of the GOP, the party that stands for bigotry, misogyny and greed; the party that stands in opposition to the goals of all minorities, most women, 97% of science, anyone with a conscience and all who understand the processes of logical thought and moral good.
There is much in Francis’ message that those on the Left would disagree with, especially when he got into issues like abortion, contraception, gay marriage and women’s place in the church, but these are more doctrinal and less universal subjects than the above mentioned and should be accepted with reservations by those who recognize the more universal aspects of his address. Sure, it would be nice if he were more open on certain subjects but the fact that he recognizes the universal need for attention to the more general, less Catholic issues of his address puts him light years ahead of any other Pope of the last few centuries. Hopefully his stance will act as a beacon for most of the bishops and cardinals who are those same light years behind their leader in terms of adjustment to the problems of the current world.