Pope of Hope

Pope Francis has ended his eventful week in the United States, and evaluations have begun.  He spoke at the White House, to a joint session of Congress, to the United Nations,  to congregations in New York and elsewhere, to a conference in Philadelphia, (where he was introduced by Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" and spoke at the podium used by Lincoln for his Gettysburg Address) among many other activities.

In ways superficial and profound, Pope Francis came to this American moment as the anti-Trump, as the antidote to the Trumpery that seems to dominate the dialogue.  In a broader historical context, he is this generation's John XXIII, a brother to President Obama the way Pope John was to JFK.  He is the pleasant surprise, adding new moral support (in both senses of moral), another hero of hope.

For me he is the first Pope I can believe in since John XXIII.  His encyclical takes historical place beside Pope John's Pacem in Terris for importance to the time as well as affirming and updating a moral tradition.  But he is also different.  He chose a name never used by another Pope, the name of a saint with a very high profile, a unique and universally known "brand."  Francis of Assisi is the saint of the poor, of Nature, of simplicity and contemplation.  Let there be a Fiat.

  Pope John's encyclical was bold and modest.  Pope Francis' is more scholarly and wide-ranging.  But even though it quotes a long list of his predecessors, the first Pope it names is Pope John.

Though I'm no longer a Catholic, I'm very aware of the pendulum swing represented by his singling out Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton in his speech to Congress.  Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker.  Merton: fearless intellectual, ecumenical, a contemplative who was practically a Buddhist with close ties to D.T. Suzuki, who brought Zen to America.

In his encyclical and his public statements here, Pope Francis' moral positions are firm, but he is politically astute; both sophisticated and straightforward.  By now his asserting that the Earth itself has moral standing is both revolutionary and supported by years of writing and advocacy by others.  But it's especially important because, hey, he's the Pope.

In Washington he made very direct and devastating points in a very soft voice and manner. Some of his statements seem radical because of how warped our political dialogue has become, how extreme the Republicans have become.  His views on immigration are the views of the Kennedys, but today they are radical.  But some of his statements remain as radical as they used to be.  Saying that we don't have peace because of people who make their money from war was considered sacrilegious in the 1960s, and still is.  Although instead of receiving censure, the Pope's call for the end of the arms trade simply was ignored.

His positions are not mine on everything, and the high profile canonization of the symbol of the shameful Mission period and its subjugation of the Native Americans in California was melancholy at best.  But overall Pope Francis is proving to be a real force for hope.

 He is correct that prior Popes have championed the poor and oppressed in their speeches and writings, but he is advocating much more actively, specifically and astutely.  But the greatest hope is in his elevation of the climate crisis as the transcendent moral issue of our moment (and he is unique in championing the poor who are most endangered by it.)  His visit to the U.S. and to the UN this September was no coincidence.  It is part of a global push, the marshaling of moral as well as political authority, to get the necessary international treaty done in December. In this he is exactly on the same page as President Obama.  Their rhetoric of urgency is almost identical.

But someone else should not be forgotten.  The words of Pope Francis reminded me of another spiritual and moral leader, the Dalai Lama, who has been speaking on these principles and issues for many years.  The insane hatred and paranoia of the Chinese when China is so politically and economically important to the West has somewhat marginalized the Dalai Lama in recent years.  So it was hardly noticed that he was soon to visit the U.S. and doubtless add his voice to supporting a climate crisis agreement--or that because of illness and exhaustion, that trip has been cancelled.
      

Climate Now

Update: From the Guardian: "Hundreds of businesses including eBay, Nestle and General Mills have issued their support for Barack Obama’s clean power plan, billed as the strongest action ever on climate change by a US president."
The White House issued the President's official statement and a checklist of provisions.

With the updated and strengthened carbon pollution rules for power plants that are to be officially announced today, President Obama is reportedly beginning a series of events and actions focused on the climate crisis.  It won't be the first time he's done so, but this is likely to be part of a shared focus on the climate crisis that will build to December, when nations gather to work out a common response.

Messages of urgency and seriousness of the challenge have alreadt been coming more frequently over the past few months,  Pope Francis issued a papal encyclical that among other topics and recommendations, called for strong action to address the climate crisis, as a moral imperative.  Leaders of other denominations added their voices.  Regional leaders pressured climate negotiators to get something done.

Organizations big and small issued notably forthright statements based on studies.  The London School of Economics concluded that the benefits of addressing the climate crisis now far outweigh the costs. The EPA issued a report detailing how the climate crisis is the preeminent issue of our time.  A coalition of scientific groups in the UK called upon that government to act on the climate crisis as a priority. Yet another Pentagon report detailed security threats likely to ensue as the climate crisis continues. A UK report on security said that the climate crisis is as great a threat as nuclear war.

But perhaps the greatest change is that the climate crisis is emerging as a decisive political issue, and the denialists are increasingly on the wrong side of history as well as of science and morality.  In much of the world, a Pew poll found, the climate crisis is seen as the most important threat.  But it is in the United States where the issue is gaining political importance.

Right now, the Democratic party candidates for President are vying with one another to be the strongest on the climate crisis.  Hillary Clinton made a major speech with large-scale specific proposals.  Martin O'Malley has made the climate crisis one of his chief issues, and Senator Berne Sanders said that the climate crisis is the greatest threat facing Earth.

Their stance is supported by recent polls on topics of concern, including this one (cited in the Clinton story linked above):

A January poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and Resources for the Future found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change.

“This issue now polls better than any other issue for Democrats,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former top climate change official in the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile, Republicans running for their presidential nomination compete with each other to please their fossil fuel billionaire backers.  The most "progressive" of their candidates will say the climate crisis is exaggerated, while others call it a hoax, and Senator Tail Gunner Ted accuses the world's climate scientists of being liars.

The difference between the parties on the climate crisis is complete.  Afraid that reality will continue to intrude on their political money-maker of denial,
 Congressional Republicans cut funds for NASA research on the entire planet Earth.  This money funds weather forecasting, among other unneeded activities.
The bill may yet face a veto.

It is fruitless to despair that Republicans won't face the reality of the climate crisis.  As Kim Stanley Robinson says, in a democracy it isn't necessary to obtain consensus.  We need 51% of voters to elect a House Democratic majority and a 60 seat Senate majority along with a Democratic President.  It's not easy, but it's pretty simple.  Give the planet a chance.  Vote Democrat.