Why it's okay to disagree with Pope Francis

For obvious reasons, I can’t resist devoting yet another column to the impact Pope Francis is having on the Catholic Church and the larger secular world it occupies. Needless to say, his amazing trip to the United States sparks my desire to comment in this space.  That having been said, my perspective of his impact isn’t prompted by his ability to draw record breaking crowds, nor is it his role as the first pontiff in history to address both houses of Congress.  Rather, I’m drawn to comment on a little-known, albeit pernicious, incident that was reported by the media back in September and vanished from public attention, as quickly as it surfaced.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) wrote a letter explaining why he planned to boycott the Pope’s address to Congress.  The reason? Climate change.  Here is his explanation:

“Media reports indicate His Holiness … intends to focus the brunt of his speech on climate change… If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line… But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous…. If the Pope plans to spend the majority of his time advocating for flawed climate change policies, then I will not attend.”

I am troubled by three assertions Congressman Gosar makes.  The first:

If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line

Ignoring the hubris inherent in the Congressman’s implication that he knows “standard” Christian theology at least as well as the Pope, I wonder if he has ever consulted the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which articulates this, seventh, principle of Catholic social teaching (i.e. “standard” Christian theology):

Care for God's Creation:

We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.

Those of us (myself included) who have taught Catholic social teaching within the context of a high school Religion classroom can easily assert that students and adults alike can disagree with respect to how we care for the earth, but all recognize – as a part of “standard” Christian theology that we must care for the earth. Which leads me to my next issue with Congressman Gosar’s complaint:

“But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous”:

If Gosar is laying claim to knowledge about Catholic dogma, he might want to check his sources. In fact, according to one religious scholar, the faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmas (i.e. incapable of error). There are 255 dogmas considered infallible by the Catholic Church and none of them reference Climate Change, its causes, effects or validity. In short, Representative Gosar – who is Jesuit-educated and considers himself a proud Catholic – mistakes the Pope’s challenge that Christians should care for the environment (a position Popes John Paul II and Benedict XI also promoted) for an arcane theological distinction that is as wide of the mark as his misunderstanding of “standard” Christian theology.  Which leads me to my last issue with the Congressman’s decision to boycott the Pope’s speech:

“If the Pope plans to spend the majority of his time advocating for flawed climate change policies, then I will not attend.”

“If”???  

Really? You mean he doesn’t know what – or even if the Pope will be “advocating for flawed climate change policies”? The Congressman boycotted the speech because he assumed that the Pope would be tackling this issue in a meaningful way. He assumed that the Pope would be arguing in favor of a position in opposition to the Congressman’s. He assumed that he would find himself in disagreement with the Pope and so could not bring himself to attend an historic occasion in which he could, at the very least, get a better understanding of the Pope’s vision for the Church in America…all because of one disputed hot-button issue.

                Any La Salle freshman can tell you what’s wrong with Congressman Gosar’s approach – the whole process of intellectual inquiry demands that attention is paid to opposing viewpoints. Walk into any Humanities classroom at La Salle and you will encounter robust debates in which the words “Yes, but…” dominate the exchange between students and teachers. We tell our students that to hold one position without understanding the other view is intellectually dishonest and we don’t accept assumptions that aren’t grounded in a careful examination of the contrary argument. We expect our students to hold competing views. We also expect them to not only defend their position but to attend to the opposing viewpoint. Why?  Because intellectual growth and development is nurtured in the Petri dish of opinion, argument and debate. Absent that set of conditions and the kind of stalemate that has paralyzed Congress for the better part of a decade becomes the norm. Shouting replaces authentic debate. Truth is defined as “my position.” Compromise becomes impossible.

                As saddened as I am by Congressman Gosar’s myopic view of Pope Francis’ moral and intellectual leadership, I am all the more encouraged by the rigor of the classroom experience our students encounter on a daily basis. I am quite confident that when they leave La Salle, they will be well on their way to becoming intellectually curious adults who recognize that “Truth” is to be sought, not defined and that there is great value in seeking out opposing views.

                I think Pope Francis would agree.