The Sat Report: Pope Francis wades into the US Presidential Race
The Pope was asked directly who Catholics should vote for on his return from Singapore
Firstly, a happy Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. This week’s Sat Report was initially going to be on the theme of inculturation and the Catholic Church, but that will be put on the shelf for a later date. Next week we preview the Pope’s trip to Belgium and his relationship with Bishop Lucas Van Looy, and the week after we preview the Synod of Bishops on Synodality. This week we look at the big news that came out yesterday of the Pope’s inflight Press Conference on his return to Rome from his 45th Papal Journey visiting Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and Singapore.
In what has become a custom, yesterday’s Press Conference on the plane was the 45th in his Pontificate. First, must be said that every time the Pope has a microphone in his hand and is asked questions from journalist he produces. He touched on a wide range of topics; Gaza, the Sino-Vatican agreement, the sexual abuse scandal surrounding the late Abbé Pierre, founder of Emmaus, potential upcoming trips, and November’s US Presidential election. The full transcript can be read here.
I will focus on what the Pope said about the upcoming US Presidential Election. Before I begin, it must be said that the Holy Father was reluctant to get involved in the race, as was seen by response of the Holy See to the assassination attempt against Donald Trump. On the plane, I must admit he handled the situation as best he could, as to remain as neutral as possible, having been put on the spot like that. As an aside I was slightly struck that in the same press conference, answering a separate question on the political situation in Venezuela, the Pope said, “I haven’t followed the situation in Venezuela, but the message I would give to the leaders is to engage in dialogue and seek peace.” But I digress.
Anna Matranga, of CBS News was one of the journalists chosen by the Vatican Comms team on the plane to put a question to the Pope, after they first took questions, as is customary, from journalists from the countries that the Pope had just visited. She asked the Pope rather pointedly, “With the US elections coming up, what advice would you give a Catholic voter faced with a candidate who supports ending a pregnancy and another who wants to deport 11 million migrants?”
The Pope responded firstly by saying:
“Both are against life: the one that throws out migrants and the one that kills children. Both are against life. I can’t decide; I’m not American and won’t go to vote there. But let it be clear: denying migrants the ability to work and receive hospitality is a sin, a grave sin. The Old Testament speaks repeatedly of the orphan, the widow, and the stranger—migrants. These are the three that Israel must care for. Failing to care for migrants is a sin, a sin against life and humanity.
I celebrated Mass at the border, near the diocese of El Paso. There were many shoes from migrants, who ended poorly there. Today, there is a flow of migration within Central America, and many times they are treated like slaves because people take advantage of the situation. Migration is a right, and it was already present in Sacred Scripture and in the Old Testament. The stranger, the orphan, and the widow—do not forget this.”
The Holy Father, rather diplomatically, on choosing between the two major parties said, “I can’t decide; I’m not American and won’t go to vote there.” On migration he espoused his usual rhetoric, and in all fairness to Americans, the vast majority of whom are pro-immigration, know the country benefits from importing the best and brightest from the rest of the world. These are people who work hard, play by the rules, and obtain visas and green cards legitimately. They rightly see America as the best country on earth and want to contribute so that it remains that way.
What Americans are less sympathetic about is unlawful migration. A country without laws is not really a country at all, and many view it as unfair to those who try for years to enter the US lawfully. It must be underlined that these people are often desperately trying to flee poverty, as the Pope says from Latin America, often from countries that have been destroyed by Leftist regimes. American has the pull factors that attract migrants often travelling thousands of miles, passing through other safe countries, deciding not to stay there, instead incentivized by free housing and financial assistance that the US offers. Unfortunately, this does also incentivize nefarious people, as well as those who in turn see opportunities to exploit desperate people in desperate situations.
America is, and always has been a melting pot, having received migrants from all over the world, and probably received more migrants than any other country in history. I genuinely do not believe that the vast majority of Americans are anti-immigrant, but instead want some control and checks in place of who exactly is coming into the country, and are generous enough to help the poor, put obviously in numbers that are sustainable for the country and for local communities.
Pope Francis continued his answer by addressing abortion:
“Then, abortion. Science says that at one month after conception, all the organs of a human being are present. Everything. Having an abortion is killing a human being. Whether you like the word or not, it’s murder. The Church is not closed-minded because it forbids abortion; the Church forbids abortion because it kills. It is murder; it is murder!”
Again, the Pope used his characteristic strong language when speaking of abortion, stating clearly what it is. Murder. I am often bemused when I read Catholics argue against a total ban on abortion, by saying that when abortions were illegal in the US, that did not stop thousands of abortions happening every year. Yes, quite. Homicide is illegal; it being illegal does not stop people murdering others. What it does do, at a bare minimum, is state that as a society this is something that is wrong and should not be tolerated.
What I am a bit more perplexed by is the Pope repeating a common refrain he uses when describing abortion, “Science says that at one month after conception, all the organs of a human being are present. Everything. Having an abortion is killing a human being.” The implication - and I am in no way saying that this is what the Pope is intending - is that before one month a human being is not present because all the organs are not present. This is not helpful and is also incorrect. Everything that makes us human is present when the sperm fertilizes the eggs, forming a zygote. The Pope’s continued use of ‘at one month …’, reminds me of the Islamic idea that ensoulment occurs at 120 days post-conception. Again, this is purely incorrect, may help to explain why the majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, but with vary with regards to at what stage of fetal development in which it is prohibited.
The Pope continued his answer by returning to the topic of migration:
“And we need to be clear about this: sending migrants away, not allowing them to grow, not letting them have life is something wrong, it is cruelty. Sending a child away from the womb of the mother is murder because there is life. And we must speak clearly about these things. “No, but however...” No “but however.” Both things are clear. The orphan, the stranger, and the widow—do not forget this.”
Hearing these words, I was reminded of the Biden Administration policy of barring migrants who cross the Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. Surprising to me, when this policy was first announced in June, the Pope did not say a word. He still has not. Addressing inhumane policies by governments used to be what the Pope was known for early in his Pontificate. Perhaps he has become less combative, a more global bridge builder. The cynic would say if the President who introduced this policy had been Trump and not Biden, the Pope would have said something. If you want my two cents, I think the Pope is not that au fait with America at all, probably receiving most of his information about the goings on in the country from Antonio Spadaro, of ecumenism of hate fame, filtered by Spadaro’s own ignorant ideological sieve.
Anna Matranga would return with a follow up to Pope Francis: “In your opinion, Your Holiness, are there circumstances in which it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who is in favor of abortion?”
Pope Francis responded like this:
“In political morality, it is generally said that not voting is ugly, it's not good. One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know; each person must think and decide according to their own conscience.”
I will be completely honest with you, I don’t know what political morality is. I have always gone with the principle, if I can’t in good conscious vote for anyone, then I would rather abstain. Abstention numbers in America, especially for presidential elections are low, compared to Europe, which seems to have slowly grown out of phase where the majority (or a significant number) of voters would just stay at home, now motivated by a desire for change, often voting for parties that are not the establishment right or left party, and instead giving their votes to the Green party or the far-right. In that sense contrary to what the Pope says, voting would be ugly.
On his more general point, in a two-horse race, one is forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. If both are equally bad in different ways, vote for the one that promises to make your life and the life of your family better. Ultimately, think like this, is your life better than it was since the last election cycle? If yes, vote for the incumbent, if not, vote for the alternative. I think that Catholics in single party states have a third option, that of the American Solidarity Party, not merely as a protest vote, but one that may induce the two major parties to change.
Though the Pope didn’t actually answer the question as whether it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who is in favor of abortion, he deferred instead to the Amoris laetitia logic, we all have our consciences, which are inviolable, as Cardinal Cupich kept repeating at the Synod on the Family, and we ultimately have to live with our consciences. Pray, and then like our Holy Father said, “each person must think and decide according to their own conscience.”
As to which of the two candidates benefits from the Pope’s remarks, it was very much a plague on both your houses. I do not think either side will be particularly happy with the Holy Father’s intervention. The Pope not-so-subtly calling the Democrats the party that kills children, will no doubt irritate pro-Democrat Catholics. The Pope quite clearly said that the migration policy of both sides is evil, but his words may be enough to give some Catholics who were hesitant to vote Democrat due to their abominable record on abortion the green light to do so. The same can be true with respect to IVF and the GOP platform.
His words may give the US bishops a headache, as they could be taken by some to put abortion on the same moral equivalency as migration. I don’t think the Pope did that, but it can certainly be seen that way. He clearly stated one of these is the lesser of two evils, though in his typical fashion did not outline which one is. On that Catholic teaching is clear, and if the Pope was addressing US Catholics, then they should know.
Just some final remarks on this press conference. The Pope did make another reference to the United States, at the press conference, answering a question from a German journalist who asked why the Pope had not addressed the issue of the death penalty in Singapore, to which the Pope admitted that it was an oversight:
“It's true; it didn’t come to mind. The death penalty doesn't work. We need to eliminate it, slowly. Many countries have the law but do not carry out the sentence. The United States is the same... But the death penalty must be stopped. It’s not right; it’s not right.”
China has the death penalty too and has carried out at least 8,000 executions every year since 2007. In the US, a country with a population of 333 million, there were 18 judicial executions in 2022, compared to Singapore, a country with a population of 5.5 million, were there 11 judicial executions in 2022. Pope Francis has developed a reputation for an anti-American bias, and perhaps he doesn’t know the data, but he would do well to inform himself of the situation of capital punishment in the world, and have the courage consistently speak out against it, if that is his desire, and not only do so when it easy and it appears as a way to shame the United States, as all that does is alienate half of an entire country, that may otherwise be receptive to message of Jesus Christ.