Pope Francis, Economics, and Poverty - by James V. Schall, S.J.

Comments made by Cardinal Bergoglio in 2010 shed light on his understanding of capitalism, work, and the poor

In CWR

“The free-will actions of human beings, in addition to our own individual responsibility, have far-reaching consequences: they generate structures that endure over time and create a climate in which certain values can either occupy a central place in public life or be marginalized from the reigning culture. And this too falls under the moral sphere.”— Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, 2010.¹

“What happens is that the unemployed, in their hours of solitude, feel miserable because they are not ‘earning their living.’ That is why it is very important that governments of all countries, through the relevant ministries and departments, cultivate a culture of work, not of charity…. They have to cultivate sources of work because, and I never tire of repeating, this, work confers dignity.” — Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, 2010.²

 

I.

The two major criticisms concerning the perceived economic thought of the current pope are these: 1) that he does not understand how normal capitalism functions with its relation to the poor, and 2) that he habitually relies on the state for solutions, when the modern state is usually a major part of the problem. In a homily in the Chapel of Santa Marta (November 5), however, Pope Francis talked of state officials who lose their dignity by taking bribes. On November 11, the Pope spoke of the man who “puts one hand in his pocket that helps the Church, while, with the other hand, he robs the State and the poor.” No doubt, political and bureaucratic corruption in the form of bribes and favoritism is a major cause of poverty and injustices in the world today, not just for the poor. Few say so as bluntly as Pope Francis. 

The Pope has spoken of “unbridled capitalism,” which seems strange. Capitalism today is almost totally bridled by extensive state control. We do have a global flow of capital seeking a place to invest. This financial power can be misused and too often is. But it is also one of the great generators of economic growth. “Unbridled capitalism,” if it exists, is much less a problem than the state-controlled capitalism when it comes to impediments for increasing wealth and labor possibilities for the poor. Moreover, as The Economist (June 1) wrote, the world in fact has recently made enormous strides in the world-wide alleviation of poverty, due mostly to capitalism and its imitators. I have not seen any mention of this fact in any of the Pope’s discussion of remaining world poverty. Both political corruption and government controls are more harmful to the poor than so-called “unbridled capitalism.” This fact also needs to be stated. 

The Pope often speaks of a “throw-away” society, something like the “consumer” society that John Paul II used to chastise. But just what are the consequences of not throwing useless or outmoded things away or not having the free demand that causes investment and employment? To prohibit a “throw-away society” seems close to mandating a stagnate economy in which what is inefficient or useless is legally kept functioning at higher and higher costs in the name of jobs or ecology. Innovation that would change things is stifled. The sources of growth flee the jurisdictions that prevent its growth. This movement, in fact, explains much of the economic gains of many poorer nations in the world today, particularly in Asia. 

The Pope is likewise famous for having remarked that the greatest problems in today’s world are “unemployed youth and loneliness in old age.” Yet, we cannot talk of unemployed youth without talking about what really causes the jobsthey need to employ them. Insisting that the government will do the job simply will not suffice, but as we will see below, Pope Bergoglio seems to understand much of this. And it is clear that all old people, rich or poor, experience loneliness. It is not basically an economic problem, as Cicero said long ago. The Pope often says that the elderly should be taken care of by their own families. But the Pope has also pointedly warned of a control of the whole global economic system that seems to him almost diabolical. 

II.

With this background, I want to comment on several interesting and surprising remarks that Jorge Bergoglio made about economic affairs in the book of conversations that took place in Argentina while he was still Archbishop there. Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio, edited by Francisca Ambrogetti and Sergio Rubin, is a wide-ranging discussion, not limited to economics. The Pope identifies himself with the cause of the poor. Nothing is wrong with this concern, provided that one also has some concrete insight into what would help most of the poor. Otherwise, we are just ringing our hands. 

Pope Francis speaks like a man with a vow of poverty, which he is. An individual person is always free to sell his goods, give them to the poor, and follow Christ. This kind of voluntary poverty is designed as a witness not so much to poverty itself as to the fact that our happiness, be we rich or poor, does not lie in material things. Even here, those who do give up these material things are told that they shall receive a hundred-fold even in this life (Matt 16:29). 

The vow of poverty does not imply that material things are intrinsically evil. They are good and can be put to good use; otherwise no virtue would result in giving them up. They can be used wrongly, of course, but in themselves they are good. The whole purpose of civilization is to show why and how this further good use of a good creation can come about. Civilization and culture aim to discover this use and bring it into orderly existence for the good of each and all. 

The earth is to serve man as its own primary purpose. Man is given “dominion” over it, which does not mean that he is supposed to let it sit there untouched. Often a correct theology is needed to see this relation, as not all theologies see it. But this order of man to earth can only come about through human intelligence, work, freedom, and organization. God did not, in creation, give us all the solutions. He gave us brains, hands, and imagination to figure it out for ourselves, a much greater manifestation of divine wisdom. 

People with vows of poverty can use their freedom to learn and do what they can to help others in a variety of ways. But the essential issue concerns not those with vows of poverty, but the free participation of the vast majority of men, who have no such vow, in a purposeful enterprise for real human goods. By his own labor and mind, man seeks both to earn a living and contribute to the good of others. At the same time, he strives to make the earth itself a more beautiful and abundant dwelling by his presence and work on it. 

But the poverty of real want is itself an important thing to identify and to think carefully about. In the beginning, the whole world was poor, dependent solely on what nature by itself brought forth. Agriculture that made the earth more bountiful had to be discovered and put into operation. The Pope wants a “poor Church,” as he has often said. But does he want a poor world? As we will see below, I think not. One of the historic effects of Christianity, as Pope Benedict XVI often said, was to make the world more elegant, more beautiful, and more fruitful. Such a position that wants everyone to be poor in the name of ecology or asceticism would be contrary to the whole dynamism of civilization, even when we recognize vividly that wealth can be dangerous and that we have here no “lasting city.” 

The question that we rarely hear asked by religious leaders is this: “Why is not everyone poor?” Is it a bad thing that many are rich and almost all desire a good level of wealth? Do we not wish the poor to become, by comparison, relatively rich? The answer is the only real issue when it comes to the question of helping the poor. Simply giving wealth away, however, causes it to disappear and often corrupts the receiver unless we also know how to increase it and teach others to use the means that produce it. 

We know how to help the poor. But not every way will work. Modern economics and politics are mostly clashes over the proper answer to the question: “What helps the poor?” If we choose the wrong way, and many do, the poor will not be helped in spite of our good intentions. We can only help the poor if everyone, rich and poor alike, is gradually becoming richer. The “redistribution” model for alleviating the poor—take from the rich give to the poor—is little more than a slogan for making everyone poor. In the New Testament, even, those who have something to give to the poor—a cloak, some bread, a dwelling—were not poor by the standards of that time. Why not? If they had nothing to give, how could they be chastised for not giving? St. Paul said, “He who will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess 3:10). Paul recognized that laziness, freeloading, and bad will are factors in causing and relieving poverty. 

The basic approach to poverty is this: “Do not talk of poverty without asking how one becomes not poor” The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Neither are the poor in that condition because existing property is maldistributed. On the large-scale, the poor are poor because responsible and just free market economies are not in place with institutions mostly free from state take-over but still within a regime of law and private initiative. 

We have to grant that some poor will always be with us for a variety of human reasons. Moreover, poverty is almost always a relative thing. The poor in some societies are by comparison fabulously rich by the conditions of another society. The wealthy of yesterday seem poorer by today’s standards. Moreover, the poor must not be treated as if they have no part in this discussion. They are not simply passive victims whose sole need is for someone else to take care of them. Often, they too have crimes and habits that make any effort to improve their lot almost impossible. We talk of the poor as if we want them so that we can take care of them for our sake. The goal should be rather that we are mainly interested in their taking care of themselves, with their own proper work and virtue. The poor do not exist so that good people can feel good about themselves by helping them. 

III.

As I cited in the beginning of this essay, Jorge Bergoglio understands the relation between work and a man’s dignity. When sufficient work for everyone is lacking, the Pope points to government’s responsibility, not to the economy or free enterprise to create new jobs. It is true that government has to “cultivate the sources of work” but these source are little discussed. The Latin American tradition, from the time of the Spanish, has had a rather top-down view of the economy. It is this tradition which seems to look first not to an on-going economy but to the state for employment. 

Later on, Bergoglio points out that some states, in order to keep jobs and employment, limit hours of work to provide jobs for others. To this practice, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires says something quite correct and, in the best sense, capitalist: “Fewer people working means fewer people consuming. Man intervenes even less in production, but at the same time who will buy the products?”³ These are exactly the right observations. The real problem, Bergoglio remarks, is not leisure time but “the first step is creating the sources of work.”⁴ This is correct. The question is still: “What does this first step in creating sources of work mean?” 

Bergoglio next follows with a comment on leisure. Leisure, he observes, can mean either idleness or gratification. There must be a culture of work and one of gratification. “People who work must take time to relax, to be with their families, enjoy themselves, read, listen to music, and enjoy a sport.”⁵ He sees working on the Sabbath a sign of eliminating leisure. It dehumanizes. 

One might note here that Bergoglio unfortunately never seems to have read Josef Pieper’s seminal book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture.⁶ Pieper, in the Aristotelian tradition, points out that leisure and recreation are not the same thing. Relaxation means a pause from work to return to work. But the purpose of work is not more work but the higher things. In this sense, work exists for leisure, not the other way around. Bergoglio does not make this distinction and so he tends to propose what is essentially a work society, and not a society that works in order that something more human might exist.⁷

The Marxist society that reduces everything to work, including the life of the mind, is one to be avoided. This approach does not mean that work is not important, but it does mean that work exists so that what is worked on comes into being. To work for work’s sake is like digging a hole and filling it up again just to be doing something. Work, to be human, must always have a purpose. Pope John Paul II maintained that the worker was more important than the work. This is true, but the worker cannot have what he does or how he does it to be unnecessary or meaningless. 

Bergoglio’s treatment of the famous movie Babette’s Feast is worth noting in light of his understanding, as pope, of poverty. He relates his discussion to a more general comment on pain. At times, suffering has been “overemphasized.” The Calvinist community in the film is pictured as closed in a narrow world. They see the “redemption of Christ as a negation of the things of this world.” They are gradually freed of this illusion by realizing the goodness of an excellent dinner. “They were devoted to the grey side of life. They feared love.” Obviously, the Pope is on the side of the blessings of the dinner and its appreciation of things.⁸

Bergoglio remarks, as he often does, that he too is a “sinner.”⁹ He does not have all the answers, or even all the questions.¹⁰ He understands the difference between ideology and morality. “We are redeemed only by what we accept. If we don’t accept that there are people with different opinions, even opposing opinions that you don’t share, and if you don’t respect them or pray for them, you will never redeem them in your heart. We must not let ideology triumph morality.”¹¹ The poor can be occasion for ideology: “Catholicism’s greatest concern regarding the poor in the sixties was the issue of fertile ground that could give rise to any kind of ideology.”¹² His response to this ideology was not to join it but to get in touch with the people and their own lives. “So the more that pastoral agents discover popular piety that more that ideology falls away, because they are close to the people and their problems.”¹³

 

Ought the Church not say much about these things? “Denouncing human rights abuses, situation of exploitation or exclusion, or shortages in education, or food, is not being partisan. Catholic social teaching is full of denunciations, yet it is not partisan. When we come out and say things, some accuse us of playing politics. I say to them, yes, we are playing politics in the Gospel sense of the word, but not the partisan sense.”¹⁴ The Church has a place in the public forum not just because of its transcendent orientation but because of its understanding about what man is. 

Why do people fall away from ethical standards? “I would say that there is a devaluation of the exercise of ethical principles in order to justify a lack of compliance with them.”¹⁵ Here again is where ideology comes as a presumed explanation of why it is all right to fall away from moral standards. We need to give reasons especially when we are wrong. The Argentine Archbishop put it in an amusing way: “There is almost always an element of deceit involved in selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge, and this is accepted because ‘everyone does it.’”¹⁶ If everyone does it, it still may be wrong. 

IV.

Bergoglio sees some cultural advance. “The fact is, in general, cultures are progressing in terms of the appeal of a moral conscience. It’s not what’s moral that's changing. What’s moral doesn’t change. We carry it inside us. Ethical behavior is part of our being. What happens is that we are continually defining it more clearly.”¹⁷ But this does not mean that we cannot slide back. When asked what he thought about opposition to abortion as a religious question, he answered: “Well, a pregnant woman isn’t carrying a toothbrush in her stomach, or a tumor. Science has taught us that from the moment of conception, the new being has its entire genetic code. It’s impressive. Therefore, it’s not a religious issue bit. A moral issue with a scientific basis. Because we are in the presence of a human being.”¹⁸ This reasonable/scientific approach to our opposition to abortion has been one that Hadley Arkes has been arguing for years. Bergoglio is in full agreement with it. 

At first sight, it seems that Bergoglio did not understand the importance of development to poverty. But in the case of Argentina itself, he is quite clear: 

I can say that we (Argentinians) have not exploited what we have. On God’s judgment day, we will count ourselves among those who ignored the gifts we were given and did not use them productively, not only in terms of agriculture and raising cattle but in mining as well… Throughout our history, we have not created jobs tied to our natural resources. It cannot be that most jobs in Argentina are found around large cities such as Buenos Aires or Rosaio. It just can’t be.¹⁹

Part of this problem, of course, is that modern agriculture is very productive with relatively few laborers. Jobs are tied to machines and the capacity to use them, especially to the presence of the computer. Cities are themselves generators of wealth and jobs. 

The Archbishop reflects on Argentina: “God gave us everything; there is not enough food or enough jobs. It is a great injustice and flagrant lack of responsibility to distributing our resources.”²⁰ The fact is that resources are not the real cause of wealth or the means for caring for others. The real source of wealth is the mind—learning how to use the mind and what it can produce. Not everyone wants to learn this or learn it in a productive context. This is why, as E. F. Schmacher used to say, the real problem is not simply economic, but moral and political. Bergoglio senses some of this: “I would say that, deep down, it is a problem of sin. For four years Argentina has been living in a sinful existence because it has not taken responsibility for those who have no food or work. It is everyone’s responsibility….”²¹ But this responsibility needs to be directed to what works. What is it after all that generates work?

Bergoglio seems quite aware of the complexity of this issue. He does understand that work needs consumption, demand, and inventiveness. “The creative capacity to generate work, and coming out ahead, seems to occur, especially in the worst of cities, when there is nothing left to do.”²² Cities that were once poor are now rich. Asia is becoming full of them. We need visions that work, that are related to reality. Bergoglio graphically put it this way: “Let us not forget that utopias lead to growth. Of course, the danger is not just in falling into the trap of reflecting on the past, of patriotic duty, in being satisfied with what one has received and not looking any further; but also in the non-historical utopia, the one without tradition, the pure fantasy.”²³ Traditional utopias can be models of stagnation or of fantasy. We need to imagine, to plan what can be done, and then do it. 

One of the remarkable but too little faced issues today is that of the fall in the birth rate in many countries and what this fall does to the economy and way of life. Bergoglio shows himself quite up-to-date on this issue. 

Of course I’m concerned (about the falling birthrate). It’s a form of social suicide. By the year 2022, Italy will not have enough revenue in its retirement coffers—that is, the country will not have the funds to pay its pensioners. At the end of 2002, France celebrated the figure of two children per woman. But Italy and Spain have less than one per woman. That means physical and social realities will be replaced; it implies that other cultures and perhaps another civilization will emerge. This will not take the slow form as the barbarian invasions of the year 400 or so, bur the territory left by some will be occupied by others. As a result of the migrations, Europe may undergo changes in its culture. Although, actually, that’s not a new phenomenon. Let’s not forget the extensive Christian communities that inhabited northern Africa for several centuries no longer exist there.²⁴

Few have put this issue better. Unfortunately, Bergoglio did not state exactly what took over in Africa so that Christian communities no longer much exist there.

The Argentine Archbishop was cautious about what goes on internationally. “But globalization is an ambiguous reality.”²⁵ Yet, he made a surprisingly strong statement about where we ought to be going: “That is what gives rise to a common ethic and openness toward a destiny of abundance that defines man as a spiritual being.”²⁶ The phrase “an abundance that defines man as a spiritual being” is memorable. We are not defined by our tight, negative existence, but by bringing forth that abundance that has been there for men to discover since they first appeared on this planet. 

Finally, Bergoglio gives us his understanding of what, in his mind, a nation is. He does not refer, say, to Maritain’s famous discussion of nation, state, society, and community in his Man in the State. Rather he gives a common sense reflection. He does not indicate that a nation comes from common blood lines, which is what the word “nation” means, while “state” is the modern post-Machiavellian word, in contrast to Aristotle’s polity. Here is Bergoglio’s analysis: 

What is it that makes a bunch of people a nation? First of all, there is a natural law and then a heritage. Second, there is a psychological factor: man becomes man (each individual or the species as it evolved) through communication, interaction, love for this fellow being. Through words and trough love. And third, these biological and psychological evolutionary factors become real and really come into play, in our free will behavior, in the desire to bond with others in a certain way, to build our lives with our neighbors in a range of shared practices and preferences.²⁷

One cannot help but seeing here his love of Argentina.

But now the Argentine Archbishop remains a man, who, like John Paul II and Benedict, does not forget his homeland. Yet he finds himself a world figure. In the end, the papal economics of this Pope, I think, show many signs of a practical wisdom that will serve us in good stead. Not everything is clear, as he himself often reminds us. Most economists themselves, in fact, admit that that “the dismal science” really has a bad record about “predicting” what will happen. The Pope, as an economist, is in good company. But that is the point. In pointing to jobs, innovation, and the poor, he is reminding us of what it is all for, what it is about. He wants us to know that it is not just about economics, even for the poor. 

ENDNOTES:

1 Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio, edited by Francisca Ambrogetti and Sergio Rubin (New York: Putnam, [2010] 2013), 238.

2 Ibid, 18.

3 Ibid, 18.

4 Ibid. 19.

5 Ibid, 19-20.

6 Josef Pieper, Leisure: The Basis of Culture, Foreword by James V. Schall (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, [1946] 2010).

7 See Joseph Hebert, “Be Still and See: Leisure, Labor, and Human Dignity in Josef Pieper and Blessed John Paul II,” Logos 16 (Spring 2013), 144-59.

8 Bergoglio, ibid, 26.

9 Ibid, 46.

10 Ibid, 48.

11 Ibid, 88-89.

12 Ibid, 93.

13 Ibid, 94.

14 Ibid, 94-95.

15 Ibid, 100.

16 Ibid, 100-101.

17 Ibid, 101.

18 Ibid, 109-10.

19 Ibid, 127.

20 Ibid, 128.

21 Ibid, 129

22 Ibid, 133.

23 Ibid, 142.

24 Ibid, 225-26.

25 Ibid, 211.

26 Ibid, 240-41.

27 Ibid. 241.

Um jesuíta corrige outro que é Papa: Islam y cristianismo. Donde trastabilla el diálogo- por Sandro Magister

In Chiesaespresso 

En la "Evangelii gaudium" el papa Francisco dicta las reglas de la relación con los musulmanes. El jesuita islamólogo Samir Khalil Samir las examina exhaustivamente una por una, y denuncia los límites

ROMA, 30 de diciembre de 2013 – En el mensaje "urbi et orbi" de Navidad el papa Francisco elevó esta oración:

"Tú, Señor de la vida, protege a cuantos sufren persecución a causa de tu nombre".

Y en el Angelus de la fiesta de san Esteban, el primero de los mártires, rezó de nuevo "por los cristianos que sufren discriminaciones a causa del testimonio brindado por Cristo y por el Evangelio".

Muchas veces el papa Jorge Mario Bergoglio manifestó su dolor por la suerte de los cristianos en Siria, en Medio Oriente, en África y en otros lugares del mundo, en todas partes que son perseguidos y asesinados, no pocas veces “en odio a la fe” y por obra de los musulmanes.

A todo esto el Papa responde invocando incesantemente "el diálogo como contribución para la paz".

En la exhortación apostólica "Evangelii gaudium" del 24 de setiembre, el más importante de los documentos publicados hasta ahora por él, Francisco ha dedicado al diálogo con los musulmanes los dos siguientes parágrafos:

252. En esta época adquiere gran importancia la relación con los creyentes del Islam, hoy particularmente presentes en muchos países de tradición cristiana donde pueden celebrar libremente su culto y vivir integrados en la sociedad. Nunca hay que olvidar que ellos, «confesando adherirse a la fe de Abraham, adoran con nosotros a un Dios único, misericordioso, que juzgará a los hombres en el día final». Los escritos sagrados del Islam conservan parte de las enseñanzas cristianas; Jesucristo y María son objeto de profunda veneración, y es admirable ver cómo jóvenes y ancianos, mujeres y varones del Islam son capaces de dedicar tiempo diariamente a la oración y de participar fielmente de sus ritos religiosos. Al mismo tiempo, muchos de ellos tienen una profunda convicción de que la propia vida, en su totalidad, es de Dios y para Él. También reconocen la necesidad de responderle con un compromiso ético y con la misericordia hacia los más pobres.

253. Para sostener el diálogo con el Islam es indispensable la adecuada formación de los interlocutores, no sólo para que estén sólida y gozosamente radicados en su propia identidad, sino para que sean capaces de reconocer los valores de los demás, de comprender las inquietudes que subyacen a sus reclamos y de sacar a luz las convicciones comunes. Los cristianos deberíamos acoger con afecto y respeto a los inmigrantes del Islam que llegan a nuestros países, del mismo modo que esperamos y rogamos ser acogidos y respetados en los países de tradición islámica. ¡Ruego, imploro humildemente a esos países que den libertad a los cristianos para poder celebrar su culto y vivir su fe, teniendo en cuenta la libertad que los creyentes del Islam gozan en los países occidentales! Frente a episodios de fundamentalismo violento que nos inquietan, el afecto hacia los verdaderos creyentes del Islam debe llevarnos a evitar odiosas generalizaciones, porque el verdadero Islam y una adecuada interpretación del Corán se oponen a toda violencia.

Los comentarios a la "Evangelii gaudium" han prestado escasa atención a estos dos parágrafos.

Pocos, por ejemplo, han advertido el insólito vigor con el que el Papa Francisco reclama también en los países musulmanes esa libertad de culto de la que gozan los creyentes del Islam en los países occidentales.

Pero quien ha puesto en evidencia este "coraje" del Papa – tal es el caso del jesuita e islamólogo egipcio Samir Khalil Samir – también ha avisado que él se ha limitado a pedir la sola libertad de culto, silenciando la privación de la libertad que obliga a convertirse de una religión a otra y que es el verdadero punto doloroso del mundo musulmán.

El padre Samir enseña en Beirut, Roma y París. Es autor de libros y de ensayos sobre el Islam y sobre su relación con el cristianismo y con Occidente, el último de los cuales fue publicado este año por EMI con el título: "Quelle tenaci primavere arabe" [Esas tenaces primaveras árabes]. Durante el pontificado de Benedicto XVI fue uno de los expertos más escuchados por las autoridades vaticanas y por el mismo Papa.

El pasado 19 de diciembre publicó en la importante agencia "Asia News" del Pontificio Instituto para las Misiones Extranjeras una amplia nota de comentario a los pasajes de la "Evangelii gaudium" dedicados al Islam.

Un comentario a dos caras. En la primera parte de la nota el padre Samir saca a la luz "las numerosas cosas positivas" dichas por el papa Francisco sobre el tema.

Pero en la segunda parte revisa los límites, con rara franqueza.

A continuación presentamos esta segunda parte de su comentario.

__________



PUNTOS DE LA "EVANGELII GAUDIUM" QUE REQUIEREN ACLARACIÓN

por Samir Khalil Samir


1. Los musulmanes "adoran con nosotros a un Dios único, misericordioso" (n. 252)

Tomaré con cautela esta frase. Es verdad que los musulmanes adoran un Dios único y misericordioso. Pero esta frase sugiere que las dos concepciones de Dios son iguales. Por el contrario, en el cristianismo Dios es Trinidad en su esencia, pluralidad unida en el amor. Es un poco más que la sola clemencia y misericordia. Tenemos dos concepciones bastante diferentes de la unicidad divina. La musulmana caracteriza a Dios como inaccesible. La visión cristiana de la unicidad trinitaria subraya que Dios es Amor que se comunica: Padre-Hijo-Espíritu Santo, o bien Amante-Amado-Amor, como sugería san Agustín.

Además, ¿qué significa también la misericordia del Dios islámico? Que Él practica misericordia con quien quiere y no la practica con los que no quiere. "Dios hace entrar en Su misericordia a quien Él quiere" (Corán 48:25). Estas expresiones se encuentran en forma casi literal en el Antiguo Testamento (Ex 33, 19). Pero no se llega jamás a decir que “Dios es Amor” (1 Jn 4, 16), tal como se expresa san Juan.

En el caso del Islam, la misericordia es la del rico que se inclina hacia el pobre y le concede algo. Pero el Dios cristiano es Aquél que desciende hacia el pobre para elevarlo a su nivel; no muestra su riqueza para ser respetado (o temido) por el pobre: se dona a sí mismo para hacer vivir al pobre.


2. "Los escritos sagrados del Islam conservan parte de las enseñanzas cristianas" (n. 252)

Es verdad en un cierto sentido, pero puede ser también ambiguo. Es verdad que los musulmanes retoman palabras o hechos de los evangelios canónicos, por ejemplo, el relato de la Anunciación se encuentra casi literalmente en los capítulos 3 (la familia de 'Imr?n) y 19 (Mariam).

Pero más frecuentemente el Corán se inspira en los relatos píos de los evangelios apócrifos, y no extraen el sentido teológico que se encuentra en ellos y no dan a estos hechos o palabras el sentido que tienen en realidad, no por malicia, sino porque no tienen la visión global del mensaje cristiano.


3. La figura de Cristo en el Corán y en el Evangelio (n. 252)

El Corán se refiere a "Jesús y María [que] son objeto de profunda veneración". A decir verdad, Jesús no es objeto de veneración en la tradición musulmana. Por el contrario, en el caso de María se puede hablar de una veneración, en particular por parte de las mujeres musulmanas, que van voluntariamente a los lugares de peregrinación mariana.

La ausencia de veneración para Jesucristo se explica probablemente por el hecho que, en el Corán, Jesús es un gran profeta, famoso por sus milagros a favor de la humanidad pobre y enferma, pero no es igual a Mahoma. Sólo por parte de los místicos se puede notar una cierta devoción, ellos lo llaman también "Espíritu de Dios".

En realidad, todo lo que se dice de Jesús en el Corán es lo opuesto de las enseñanzas cristianas. Él no es Hijo de Dios: es un profeta y basta. No es ni siquiera el último de los profetas, porque por el contrario el "sello de los profetas" es Mahoma (Corán 33:40). La revelación cristiana es vista sólo como una etapa hacia la revelación última, traída por Mahoma, es decir, el Islam.


4. El Corán se opone a todos los dogmas cristianos fundamentales

La figura de Cristo como segunda persona de la Trinidad es condenada. En el Corán se dice en forma explícita a los cristianos: "Oh, gente de la Escritura, no se excedan en su religión y digan de Dios nada más que la verdad. El Mesías Jesús, hijo de María, no es más que un mensajero de Dios, una de sus palabras que Él pone en María, un Espíritu [que proviene] de Él. Crean entonces en Dios y en sus mensajeros. No digan ‘Tres’, ¡deténganse! Será mejor para ustedes. En verdad Dios es un dios único. ¿Tendría un hijo? Gloria a Él (Corán 4:171). Los versículos contra la Trinidad son muy claros y no tienen necesidad de tantas interpretaciones.

El Corán niega la divinidad de Cristo: "Oh, hijo de María, ¿eres tú quien dijo a la gente: 'tomadme a mí y a mi madre como dos divinidades además de Dios'?" (Corán 5:116). ¡Jesús lo niega!

Por último, en el Corán se niega la redención. Directamente se afirma que Jesucristo no murió en la cruz, sino que fue crucificado un doble: "No lo han matado, no lo han crucificado, sino que les pareció" (Corán 4:157). De este modo Dios salvó a Jesús de la malicia de los judíos. ¡Pero entonces Cristo no ha salvado al mundo!

En síntesis, el Corán y los musulmanes niegan los dogmas esenciales del cristianismo; la Trinidad, la Encarnación y la Redención. ¡Se debe agregar que éste es su derecho más absoluto! Pero entonces no se puede decir que "los escritos sagrados del Islam conservan parte de las enseñanzas cristianas". Se debe hablar simplemente del “Jesús coránico” que no tiene nada que ver con el Jesús de los Evangelios.

El Corán cita a Jesús porque pretende completar la revelación de Cristo para exaltar a Mahoma. En el resto, viendo cuánto Jesús y María hacen en el Corán, nos damos cuenta que ellos no hacen más que aplicar las oraciones y el ayuno según el Corán. María es ciertamente la figura más bella entre todas las presentadas en el Corán: es la Madre Virgen, que ningún hombre jamás ha tocado. Pero no puede ser la Theotokos; más bien es una buena musulmana.


LOS PUNTOS MÁS DELICADOS


1. Ética en el Islam y en el cristianismo (252)

La última frase de este parágrafo de la "Evangelii gaudium" dice, al hablar de los musulmanes: "También reconocen la necesidad de responderle [a Dios] con un compromiso ético y con la misericordia hacia los más pobres". Esto es verdad y la piedad hacia los pobres es una exigencia del Islam.

Pero me parece que hay una doble diferencia entre la ética cristiana y la musulmana.

La primera es que la ética musulmana no es siempre universal. Se trata a menudo de ayuda dentro de la comunidad islámica, mientras que la obligación de ayuda, en la tradición cristiana, es de por sí universal. Se nota, por ejemplo, cuando hay una catástrofe natural en alguna región del mundo, que los países de tradición cristiana ayudan sin considerar la religión de quien es ayudado, mientras que los riquísimos países musulmanes (los de la Península Arábiga, por ejemplo) no lo hacen en este caso.

La segunda es que el Islam liga ética y legalidad. El que no ayuna durante el mes de Ramadán comete un delito y va a la cárcel (en muchos países). Si cumple el ayuno previsto, desde el alba hasta la puesta del sol, es perfecto, aunque luego de la puesta del sol come hasta el alba del día siguiente, más y mejor que lo que come habitualmente: "se comen las cosas mejores y en abundancia", como me decían algunos amigos egipcios musulmanes. Parece que no hay otro significado en el ayuno si no es el de obedecer a la ley mismo del ayuno. El Ramadán se convierte en el período en el que los musulmanes comen más, y comen las cosas más deliciosas. Al día siguiente nadie trabaja, dado que por comer nadie ha dormido. Pero desde el punto de vista formal todos han ayunado durante algunas horas. Es una ética legalista: si usted hace esto, usted está en lo justo. Es una ética superficial.

Por el contrario, el ayuno cristiano es algo que tiene como fin aproximarse íntimamente al sacrificio de Jesús, a la solidaridad con los pobres y no es el momento en el que se recupera cuanto uno no ha comido.

Si alguno aplica la ley islámica, todo está en orden. El fiel no pretende ir más allá de la ley. La justicia es requerida por la ley, pero no es superada. Por eso, no está en el Corán la obligación del perdón. Por el contrario, en el Evangelio Jesús pide perdonar de modo infinito (setenta veces siete, cf. Mt 18, 21-22). En el Corán la misericordia no llega jamás al amor.

Lo mismo vale para la poligamia: se puede tener hasta cuatro esposas. Si quiero tener una quinta, basta repudiar a una de las que ya tengo, quizás la más vieja, y tomar una esposa más joven. Al tener siempre sólo cuatro esposas estoy en la legalidad perfecta.

Está también el efecto contrario, por ejemplo, para la homosexualidad. En todas las religiones es un pecado. Pero para los musulmanes, es también un delito que debería ser castigado con la muerte. En el cristianismo es un pecado, pero no un crimen. El motivo es obvio: el Islam es religión, cultura, sistema social y político; es una realidad integral. Es claramente así en el Corán. Por el contrario, el Evangelio distingue claramente la dimensión espiritual y ética de la dimensión socio-cultural y política.

Lo mismo vale para la pureza, como lo explica en forma clara Cristo a los fariseos: "No es lo que entra en la boca lo que contamina al hombre, sino que es lo que sale de su boca lo que contamina al hombre" (Mt 15, 11).


2. "Los fundamentalismos de ambas partes" (n. 250 y 253)

Por último, hay dos aspectos que querría criticar. El primero es aquél en el que el Papa pone juntos a todos los fundamentalismos. En el n. 250 se dice: “Una actitud de apertura en la verdad y en el amor debe caracterizar el diálogo con los creyentes de las religiones no cristianas, a pesar de los varios obstáculos y dificultades, particularmente los fundamentalismos de ambas partes”.

El otro es la conclusión de la sección sobre la relación con el Islam que termina con esta frase: "Frente a episodios de fundamentalismo violento que nos inquietan, el afecto hacia los verdaderos creyentes del Islam debe llevarnos a evitar odiosas generalizaciones, porque el verdadero Islam y una adecuada interpretación del Corán se oponen a toda violencia" (n. 253).

Personalmente, yo no pondría los dos fundamentalismos en el mismo plano: los fundamentalistas cristianos no llevan armas; el fundamentalismo islámico es criticado ante todo y precisamente por los propios musulmanes, porque este fundamentalismo armado busca reproducir el modelo mahometano. En su vida, Mahoma libró más de 60 guerras; ahora bien, si Mahoma es el modelo excelente (como dice el Corán en 33:21), no sorprende que algunos musulmanes usen su violencia a imitación del fundador del Islam.


3. La violencia en el Corán y en la vida de Mahoma (n. 253)

Por último, el Papa menciona la violencia en el Islam. En el parágrafo 253 se lee: "el verdadero Islam y una adecuada interpretación del Corán se oponen a toda violencia".

Esta frase es bellísima, y expresa una actitud muy benévola del Papa hacia el Islam. Pero me parece que ella expresa más un deseo que una realidad. Que la mayoría de los musulmanes puede ser contraria a la violencia también puede darse. Pero decir que "el verdadero Islam es contrario a toda violencia" no me parece cierto: la violencia está en el Corán. Decir además que "una adecuada interpretación del Corán se opone a toda violencia" tiene necesidad de muchas explicaciones. Basta recordar los capítulos 2 y 9 del Corán.

Sin embargo, es verdad cuanto el pontífice afirma sobre el hecho que el Islam tiene necesidad de una "adecuada interpretación". Este camino ha sido recorrido por algunos eruditos, pero no es lo suficientemente fuerte para contrastar la que recorre la mayoría. Esta minoría de eruditos busca reinterpretar los textos coránicos que hablan de la violencia, mostrando que ellos están ligados al contexto de la Arabia de la época y estaban en el contexto de la visión político-religiosa de Mahoma.

Si el Islam quiere permanecer hoy en esta visión ligada al tiempo de Mahoma, entonces siempre habrá violencia. Pero si el Islam – hay un buen número de místicos que lo han hecho – quiere encontrar una espiritualidad profunda, entonces la violencia no es aceptable.

El Islam se encuentra frente a una encrucijada: o la religión es un camino hacia la política y hacia una sociedad políticamente organizada, o la religión es una inspiración para vivir con más plenitud y amor.

El que critica al Islam a propósito de la violencia no hace una generalización injusta y odiosa: muestra las cuestiones presentes, vivas y sangrantes en el mundo musulmán.

En Oriente se comprende muy bien que el terrorismo islámico está motivado religiosamente, con citas, oraciones y fatwa por parte de imanes que fomentan la violencia. El hecho es que en el Islam no hay una autoridad central que corrija las manipulaciones. Esto hace que cada imán se crea un mufti, una autoridad nacional que puede emitir juicios inspirados por el Corán, hasta llegar a ordenar que se mate.


CONCLUSIÓN: UNA "ADECUADA INTERPRETACIÓN DEL CORÁN"


Para concluir, el punto verdaderamente importante es el de la "adecuada interpretación". En el mundo musulmán, el debate más fuerte – que es también el más prohibido – es precisamente el de la interpretación del libro sagrado. Los musulmanes creen que el Corán salió de Mahoma, completo, en la forma que conocemos. No existe el concepto de inspiración del texto sagrado, la cual da espacio una interpretación del elemento humano presente en la palabra de Dios.

Tomemos un ejemplo. En tiempos de Mahoma, con tribus que vivían en el desierto, el castigo para un ladrón era cortarle la mano. ¿Para qué servía? ¿Cuál era la finalidad de este castigo? No permitir que el ladrón siguiera robando. Ahora debemos preguntarnos: ¿cómo podemos salvaguardar hoy esta finalidad, es decir, que el ladrón no robe? ¿Podemos utilizar otros métodos en lugar del corte de la mano?

Hoy todas las religiones tienen este problema: cómo reinterpretar el texto sagrado, el cual tiene un valor eterno, pero que se remonta a siglos o a milenios.

Cuando encuentro a amigos musulmanes, saco a la luz el hecho que hoy en día es necesario interrogarse sobre la "finalidad" (maqased) que tenían las indicaciones del Corán. Los teólogos y los juristas musulmanes dicen que se deben buscar las “finalidades de la Ley divina” (maq?sid al-shar?'a). Esta expresión corresponde a lo que el Evangelio llama “el espíritu” del texto, en oposición a la “letra”. Es necesario buscar la intención del texto sagrado del Islam.

Varios eruditos musulmanes hablan de la importancia de descubrir “la finalidad” de los textos coránicos para adecuar el texto del Corán al mundo moderno. Me parece que esto está muy próximo a cuanto el Santo Padre intenta sugerir al hablar de "una adecuada interpretación del Corán".

Pope Francis' Missionary Church - by James V. Schall, S.J.

In CWR

 

“Each Christian and every community must discern the path that the Lord points out, but all of us are asked to obey his call to go forth from our own comfort zone in order to reach all the ‘peripheries’ in need of the light of the Gospel.”
— Pope Francis, The Joy of the Gospel, #20.

“The kingdom is here, it remains; it struggles to flourish anew. Christ’s resurrection everywhere calls for the seeds for that new world, even if they are cut back, they grow again, for the resurrection is already secretly woven into the fabric of this history, for Jesus did not rise in vain. May we never remain on the sidelines of this march of living hope?”
— Pope Francis, The Joy of the Gospel, #278.

I.

When I finished Pope Francis’ first encyclical, The Light of Faith, I concluded that Francis’ pontificate would concentrate on the parish, on local communities and dioceses as centers of worship, belief, and charity. The Church would be less in the public eye. This example of a vibrant local life would be the basis of the attraction of Christianity to the Gentiles. 

On finishing Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, The Joy of the Gospel, however, I have to conclude differently. Francis is concerned with an active, “missionary” Church that is very much involved with everything else through its attention to and delight in its own communal life. Time Magazine’s making Francis the “Person of the Year” is enough to tell us that Pope Francis’ short pontificate so far has not been a quiet affair to which few have paid attention. From the moment of his election, Francis came on not so much as a tiny seed but as a full grown mustard tree, to adapt a famous parable. 

Since the day of his election, Francis has often, sometimes daily, made headlines of one sort or another throughout the world. Most everyone has an opinion about him. No one can ignore him, not even those who would like to. He is obviously likeable. He appreciates community life. One of the Renaissance popes (Leo X, d. 1521) quipped to his brother: “God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” I have the impression that, in the best sense, Francis has enjoyed being pope. He seeks to know everyone. He drives his security forces crazy. But he has an exuberance that is catching. And he has something to say and he says it; let the chips fall where they may. He tells everyone he loves them. He tells us that he is a “sinner.” He does not think he is always right. He thanked Archbishop Marchetto for correcting him on the issue of the continuity of the Church before and after Vatican II. 

Aside from The Light of Faith, which had Benedict XVI in its background, we have seen very little of Francis’ overall thought. He has a sparse paper-trail. He gives short, familiar homilies in Santa Marta’s chapel, each with three points. His Wednesday audiences and talks in L’Osservatore Romano are generally short and homey. He affirms every settled doctrine of the Church, but wants to present it gently, in a new context. What he says is always full of personal comment. We know much of his experiences in Argentina. They loved him in Rio at World Youth Day. Several of his interviews have gained worldwide attention and sharp controversy. 

The Pope clearly wants to shift the attention of the Church to a missionary, outgoing mode. He does not want anyone to stay at home. We not only are to experience the joy of the Gospel ourselves, but its contagion is to be brought to others. The Pope prods those who stay at home or in bureaucratic offices to get out in the streets. He wants bishops and priests to have open doors. Somewhere he commented that churches should be unlocked—which makes one smile because of the experience of many parishes: if they do not lock their doors, they are constantly vandalized. But he speaks from his own experience where doors of churches can be left open. This is the goal of any peaceable society. 

The Pope has many ideas about economics and politics. He does not hesitate to tell us about them. To many, they sound very “south of the border,” even beyond Mexico way. Pope Bergoglio admits that he is not an expert in these matters. But he insists that attention to the poor is part of his and everyone else’s job. He wonders why we cannot find politicians who can figure this problem out. Actually, a good part of the world’s poor in recent decades have passed out of extreme poverty (see “Towards the End of Poverty,” The Economist, June 1, 2013). Many people at least seem to know how to accomplish this goal. But this Pope will not be content with less than everyone. This insistence is both refreshing and a little frustrating. No one can mind too much to be reminded of things yet to be figured out. St. Thomas, whom the Pope cites frequently in The Joy of the Gospel, however, said that such things often can only be done “gradually.” 

II.

But if I am asked what is the overall impression left by this Exhortation, I have to say that it is very much “this-worldly” oriented. It points horizontally, not vertically. The inner life of the Godhead is not much spoken of. When the Father is mentioned, it is always in the context of the love of the neighbor whom God loves in Christ. Unlike Benedict in Spe Salvi, there is little attention given to “eternal life.” When Francis mentions the “kingdom of God,” he does not, as one would expect, cite Augustine. He mentions actual cities and is rather surprised by them. When Augustine talked of “the City of God,” he said that it began among us, but could not be achieved in this world. No existing city would ever be this Kingdom. Augustine, with good reason, was leery of the ambitions of the cities of this world. 

Of course, this emphasis on actual cities is Aristotelian. We are social and political animals. What concerns Francis, if I might put it that way, is the second great commandment. He obviously does not deny the first, the love of God. But Francis’ attention is given to God’s love as it exists among us. But he thinks not enough response is given to it. He wants to improve the world by emphasizing the joy of Christianity that we can experience in our lives and worship. The love of neighbor is an active thing. This pope believes in action. He talks of contemplation at times, but with overtones of Ignatius of Loyola’s simul in actione contemplativus; we behold God’s action in the doing of what needs to be done. 

Pope Bergoglio is much more oriented to modernity, to modern culture, than the previous two popes. He cites John XXIII, and sometimes Paul VI, though he certainly cites John Paul II and Benedict—and de Lubac, Guardini, Newman, Bernanos, and the various documents of episcopal conferences. He is open to modern science. He is aware of skepticism, relativism, and atheism, but he has a certain sympathy for their adherents. 

So what do I think the Pope is doing with his strong emphasis on missionary activities? He lightly touches the difficulty of political obstacles in most nations of the world to allow for much real missionary work. He mentions the basic right of religious freedom and its lack in many nations. He does not name many names. So his missionary activity first begins at home. The “joy” of the Gospel is designed to be a beacon of light in the world. It can only be seen if believers themselves see it. 

Modernity is, briefly, the position that no truth is found in things or in ourselves. We are free because we are liberated from all religion or philosophy that would limit our freedom, individual or corporate. Religion of any kind is an enemy to this liberty. Once this freedom is established, man can go forward, as Benedict pointed out, to create a world in his own image. Man is not made in any image of God. He makes himself in his own image. Once free of any transcendent claim, man is free to create a truly “human” world that has no outside demands of a god or nature. Science and politics with this background will be able to make man into what he ought to be. 

What Pope Francis seems to be doing in this Exhortation is, as it were, to present an alternative to modernity within modernity. This alternative is itself inner-worldly. That is, the emphasis is on the effects of Christianity as it truly ought to be lived in the here and now.

Another legitimate version of this living as Christians ought to live would be the admonition in Scripture that Christians will often be hated precisely because they do live as Christ asked them to live. At the end of time, it seems possible that there will be little faith. But we are dealing here with what is in fact a legitimate approach, as far as I understand it. There has always been a question of what is, in fact, the “inner-worldly” purpose of revelation. Granted that it can and often is rejected, still what would the world look like if the famous ancient phrase “see how they love one another” were practiced as a missionary endeavor? 

As far as I can see, Pope Bergoglio is bent on proposing for us a way to put into effect what the Didache once said about Christians wanting to live quietly and peacefully in the world. But this would initially involve not only Christians themselves with a life of joy in their communities, but also of intelligently confronting issues of sin, economic and political disorder, self-love, and other aberrations that prevent us from helping others. 

In the process, we do not cease to be sinners. Hence, the Pope has much to say about forgiveness and mercy. His particular proposals may be debated. Nietzsche’s complaint was that Christians did not live like Christians—so why worry about them? Pope Bergoglio’s exhortation is that we will all “worry” about them when they live in love and display the joy that Christ showed them. This love is not just a personal thing, though it that too. The Pope speaks of “structural” impediments and cultural habits that prevent us from living as we should. 

But at bottom, what this Exhortation seems to be is, indeed, an answer to classical modernity that, when spelled out, does everything modernity hopes for, only better and more securely because it is rooted in the real nature of man and is open to the gifts that have come to us in revelation. The Pope’s impatience has its charm. It also has its dangers. After all, most men who have ever lived on this planet have lived in very imperfect circumstances. The Church was for them too. Few lived in really fully developed economic and political orders with scientific and technological support that enabled man the leisure and time to create a civilization. Paul VI called it a “civilization of love,” and Pope Francis would probably call it the same. 

So while the function and inspiration of the Church is surely to stand for joy and fulfillment in this life, it never forgets that we save or lose our souls in the societies in which we live, whatever their condition. Some societies are better than others. And we are fortunate if in our lifetime we have lived in one of the better ones. One does not know this—“who are we to judge?”—but it is quite possible that more souls reached their transcendent end from the gulags and concentration camps than from the fashionable addresses of our culture. 

But that is no argument for setting up concentration camps. That is the Pope’s point. We must try with all our energy and strength for something better. Pope Bergoglio’s impatience is “this-worldly,” if you will, but it is not “utopian” or modernist. That, I think, is what this detailed Exhortation really has to teach us.