By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
I was pleased when I heard that Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, the director of the Holy See Press Office, was going to clarify what Pope Francis said about Donald Trump and his views on immigration while on the plane from Mexico to Rome in mid-February.
After reading Lombardi’s statement I was less pleased. In fact, it bugged me. Sorry, Father, with all due respect, it came across like one of those non-apology apologies we get from a politician when he puts his foot in his mouth. Lombardi didn’t offer anything as hackneyed as “the Holy Father was taken out of context and regrets if anyone interpreted his words in the wrong way,” but he came close.
When asked about Trump by a reporter, who prefaced his question by stating that Trump had announced his intention to deport 11 million illegal immigrants and build a wall across the border between the United States and Mexico, the Pope replied, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.”
Lombardi’s explanation? He insisted that Francis had not intended a “personal attack” on Trump, but was merely reiterating his well-known views on the immigration issue: “The Pope said what we already know, if we follow his teachings and positions. We shouldn’t build walls, but bridges.”
A day later, Fox News contributor Fr. Jonathan Morris backed up Lombardi in an interview on the Fox News program The Five. Morris conceded that Francis was answering a question about Trump, but argued that his answer was not directed specifically at Trump, but were his “generic views, coherent with the nature of the Gospel.” Morris insisted that the Pope’s words were directed only at people “who only want to build walls” — raising his voice to stress the word “only” — and that what Francis said about Trump “was based on what he had been told about Trump and hence was giving him the benefit of the doubt.”
Fr. Lombardi and Fr. Morris, please: The Pope was talking about Trump, not his “generic view” on “the immigration issue.” Everyone knows that. Pretending otherwise comes across as a something that Bill Clinton might say about “what the meaning of is is.”
It is a distraction to focus on the Pope’s use of the word “only.” Who wants to “only” build a wall? Whatever you think of Trump, Fr. Lombardi, are you contending that he would not favor student and cultural exchanges after he builds his wall? That he would not favor the United States government seeking a way to help the failed societies in Latin America reform themselves so that their people will not have to flee to the United States to find work and a dignified life?
Is he saying that Trump is not in favor of American investors building businesses in Mexico that will offer jobs that pay more than are currently available to Mexican workers? Isn’t that a way of building bridges? (Trump protests American companies moving existing facilities and American jobs to Mexico, such as Carrier has recently done. But does not oppose American investors opening new facilities there.) If not, why not? American investors have done more to raise the standard of living of Mexicans than Fidel Castro and the Venezuelan Marxist Hugo Chavez ever contemplated doing.
Fr. Lombardi does not tell us how he concluded that the Pope was not casting doubts about Trump’s standing as a Christian. It certainly sounded that way. Pope Francis is not Trump’s spiritual adviser. How is he able to judge the state of Trump’s soul, especially when one considers his reluctance to make such decisions — “Who am I to judge?” — about active homosexuals?
Is Lombardi instructing us that the Pope’s “long-held views” on immigration include the teaching that it is immoral for an American leader to seek an immigration policy that protects the jobs of American workers, including recently arrived legal immigrants? Where is that doctrine found in the Church’s social teachings?
Is Fr. Lombardi implying that an open-borders policy is the only moral approach to the immigration question? That the United States must accept everyone on the planet who wants to live within its borders, and give them health care, education, housing, and food stamps when they arrive? He can’t be saying that. It is mathematically impossible. Italy couldn’t do that. Argentina couldn’t do that. Vatican City could not do that.
At what point does Lombardi think it becomes un-Christian for a country to set what it thinks is a reasonable limit on immigrants? We must assume that Lombardi knows that the United States accepts far more legal immigrants than any other country on Earth, by a wide margin. (That’s a fact. Google it, if you have doubts.) How many more immigrants must the United States admit before it is acting morally? 10 percent more? 20 percent? Are we morally permitted to close our borders to illegal immigrants and deport those who sneak in at that point? Is it un-Christian for an American candidate for the presidency to debate these numbers in public? We deserve some enlightenment from the Holy See Press Office.
Fr. Morris began his analysis of the Pope’s words on The Five, with the comment, “I love the Pope, but he can be a handful.” For what it is worth, those are my sentiments, as well. The Pope is a man with a generous heart, dedicated to encouraging us to follow our Lord’s instruction to serve the least of our brethren and those who hunger and thirst for justice’ sake. But he often speaks in public without taking into account how his personal views on political matters will be interpreted by the media and partisan politicians. (Bernie Sanders was quick to proclaim, “The Pope is a socialist!”)
Fr. Lombardi knows the expression “the cover-up is worse than the crime.” It applies here, even though the Pope did nothing remotely resembling a crime. In fact, the Pope did nothing wrong. All he did was say more than he should have said after a long trip. The Pope is entitled in his private life to view the world as a Latin American priest who has lived his life witnessing corrupt governments deny their people the opportunity to live lives of dignity. His part of the world is full of examples of governments like that. Shooting the breeze with reporters is part of his private life. (Although, it could be that his advisers can be criticized for permitting him to be put into such a setting.)
At the risk of appearing presumptuous, permit me to offer what I think Fr. Lombardi should have said, openly and unapologetically. Here goes: “On the flight home from Mexico, the Pope was reacting to the poverty he saw while on his trip to Latin America and along the Mexican border. While doing that, the Pope should be entitled to engage in a friendly, informal conversation about poverty and his impressions of certain world leaders, including Donald Trump, without reporters and commentators interpreting his words as elements of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
“The Pope understands why many are concerned about his criticism of Donald Trump, coming as it did after his warm interaction with Raul Castro at the Vatican last year. He would have spoken differently in a setting where he had had the opportunity to weigh his words.”
Such a statement would have served Pope Francis and the world’s Catholics well.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress