William Kilpatrick uses the Pope’s remarks during his recent American visit as an opportunity to discuss the need for “humility before the facts,” versus “uninformed pronouncements on everything from climate change to jihad.”
“Humility and Hubris,” by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, September 29, 2015:
Much has been written about the Pope’s humility, and he himself has often spoken about the need for humility. Yet it is possible to detect a certain amount of hubris in the positions he takes on political and scientific matters.
For example, it takes a certain level of hubris for a man to take a public stand on the threat of global warming when he has no background in the subject, and when the evidence for global warming is sketchy. On that score, it would be interesting to know if the Pope or his advisers subscribe to the “hockey stick” model of global warming promoted by Dr. Michael E. Mann of Penn State University, and later given a starring role in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth. If they do, are they aware that scores of eminent scientists and climatologists are now deserting the Mann model faster than retirees are deserting the frozen-over country otherwise known as the Northeast.
I’m not saying that the Pope is puffed up with pride—just that he must be awfully sure of his opinion to promote the global warming scare at just the point in time when so many prominent scientists are beginning to have their doubts. “The ecological crisis threatens the existence of humanity,” said Pope Francis. Yet the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years, and will likely continue to do so for a long time to come.
Moreover, one has to be decidedly sure of oneself to stress the urgency of addressing this hypothetical hyper-crisis when there is another ominous and much more obvious threat to global safety. The pope has spoken about the persecution of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East and Africa, but not with the same urgency he reserves for environmental issues. When speaking of the genocide being committed in the name of Islam, Pope Francis tends to use the language of moral equivalence. Thus, when addressing Congress he lamented:
Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism…
“Religion?” What religion might that be? Although Pope Francis is quick to condemn rapacious capitalist corporations for the crime of environmental destruction, he lets Islam off the hook for the “brutal atrocities.” Rather, he spreads out the blame for “violent conflict” to include generic fundamentalists from every religion. Could be Catholics. Could be Mormons. Could be Buddhists. Best not to look too closely.
The Pope seems quite sure about things that are widely debated. He is sure that global warming is an imminent threat, and he is sure that violence has nothing to do with Islam. Pride, as they say, goeth before a fall, and, in a way, the pope’s sublime assurance that he is on the right side of the issues helps open the door for even more violent conflict. But before going into that, let me say a bit more about hubris—or, to be specific, liberal hubris.
When it comes to strictly theological matters, it’s not wise to try and fit popes into liberal and conservative categories. But otherwise it seems safe to say that on many political and economic issues, Pope Francis (along with others in the hierarchy) tends to line up with liberals and with the big government solutions that liberals favor. The hierarchy often simply borrows the liberal analysis of problems, assuming that a great deal of thought has gone into the analysis.
But anyone who has dealt with liberals knows that, with some exceptions, they are more interested in feeling good about their policies than in checking to see whether the policies work. What allows them to skip over the details is the presumption that they are highly intelligent, because all the smart people—in government, in the universities, and in media—agree with them. The thinking process for liberals consists largely in checking around to see what other liberals are saying. In brief, if your intentions are good, and if all the best people are of the same mind, there’s no need for further research.
I wouldn’t accuse the Pope (and like-minded bishops) of seeking the praise of the world as so many liberals do, but there is something disturbing about their tendency to adopt the most high-sounding policies without giving much thought to the consequences. All that the bishops (many of them, at least) seem to require of a policy initiative is that it be couched in the language of “peace,” “justice,” and “compassion.” For example, when the world powers signed on to the Iranian nuclear deal, the Vatican immediately endorsed it. Vatican officials probably know very little about the details of uranium enrichment, the difficulty of inspecting secret sites, or the apocalyptic mindset of the mullahs. But none of that matters if you’ve been assured by all the smart people that this deal presents “the best chance for peace.”
Whether or not this knee-jerk endorsement of liberal fantasies amounts to hubris, I can’t say. But there’s little evidence of humility in it—not in the sense of humility before the facts. The facts strongly suggest that the Iran deal will bolster Iran’s worldwide terror campaign. And the facts suggest that once Iran has the bomb, it will use it. The end result of the Iran deal looks to be far more deadly in its consequences than a half-degree rise in the earth’s temperature. Yet Catholic prelates continue to prefer nice-sounding narratives to hard facts.
No one, I think, could doubt the Pope’s personal humility. By all appearances, he is not the sort to take himself too seriously. But, judging by his public advocacy of controversial positions, he does take his ideas seriously.
In the minds of many, however, they are half-baked ideas which, if put into practice, would have the opposite effect from the one the Pope intends. For example, in listening to Pope Francis speak about economic models, you come away with the impression that global poverty is somehow caused by capitalism. But most of the basket-case economies of the world are not run along free market lines. Rather, the socialist model which the Pope seems to favor is a far more reliable generator of poverty. As to Francis’ contention that fossil fuel production hurts the poor, even the most liberal economists would admit that fossil fuel-produced energy has done more to pull more people out of poverty than almost any other factor.
The latest and perhaps most ill-considered initiative coming out of the Vatican is its call for Europeans to welcome hundreds of thousands of migrants into their countries. When he addressed the UN, the Pope spoke of the dreams of immigrants to build a “future in freedom.” But what if the dream of a significant number of migrants is to build a Caliphate in Europe? If that dream is fulfilled—and it seems increasingly likely that it will be—it will create a whole new refugee crisis in Europe: Europeans fleeing the continent before the Islamic Curtain comes crashing down.
No one expects the Pope to issue a call for more water cannons and barbed wire on the borders, but the injunction to help your neighbor in his immediate need ought to be balanced by a more realistic assessment of the overall situation. Pope Francis, however, seems unwilling to frame the issue as anything but a simple matter of compassion.
Others are not so sanguine. As Hungarian bishop Lazlo Kiss-Rigo put it: “They’re not refugees. This is an invasion. They come here with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar.’ They want to take over.” Kiss-Rigo added that the pope was misinformed. “He doesn’t understand the situation,” he said.
That would seem to include not only a misunderstanding of the intentions of the migrants (about 75 percent of whom are single males), but also a gross overestimation of the capacity of Europeans to assimilate them. The Catholic Church in Europe can’t even keep Catholics Catholic. What makes its leaders think they know the key to turning Muslims from the Maghreb and the Middle-East into good Europeans? Over the past half century, the number of Catholic churchgoers has declined precipitously, along with the Catholic birthrate. Meanwhile churches are being turned into mosques at an alarming rate; and in some major cities, Muslim children already outnumber Christian children.
Perhaps the Pope believes that the Church in Europe can eventually recover from whatever setbacks it experiences due to the Islamic incursion. But history suggests that Christianity has never been able to recover from Muslim conquests, except in those cases where Christian armies managed eventually to expel the Muslims invaders.
In the face of Christian persecution, too many Christians are relying on the maxim “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.” It’s true that in case of the Roman Empire, persecution of Christians did lead to the growth of Christianity. But that wasn’t the case in North Africa, Byzantium, and the Middle East—places that were nearly one hundred percent Christian until the Muslims appeared. Under Islamic rule, the Christian population steadily declined, until today Christians in these regions face total extermination.
Will Christianity in Europe survive successive waves of Muslim migrants? Considering what’s at stake, the attitude of the Pope and numerous European bishops is puzzling. We expect bishops to remind their flocks of the duty to help those in need. But we also expect them to warn Christians when there are grave dangers involved. They have done the former, but not the latter. Why? Is it simple ignorance of the true dimensions of the situation, as Bishop Kiss-Rigo suggests? Is it ignorance of history? Ignorance of the Islamic doctrine of hijra (conquest through immigration)? Or is it hubris?
For those of a progressive mindset, dreams of the future take precedence over lessons from the past. For that matter, they rarely feel the need to acquaint themselves with the facts surrounding current issues. A little surface knowledge will do—just enough to give them some talking points. The main thing for them is the feel-good factor. Mid-East scholar Raymond Ibrahim asserts that for Western governments, media, and academia “taking in refugees has little to do with altruism and everything to do with egoism.” He continues: “By taking in ‘foreign’ Muslims as opposed to ‘siding’ with ‘familiar’ Christians, progressives get to feel ‘enlightened,’ ‘open-minded,’ ‘tolerant,’ and ‘multicultural’—and that’s all that matters here.”
I don’t believe that’s “all that matters” for some bishops. I think they are motivated in large part by genuine Christian charity. At the same time, it’s difficult to avoid noticing elements of egoism—a certain self-congratulation on their own compassion, tolerance, and superior understanding of world affairs. And even if their knowledge of world affairs is not extensive, they know that their hearts are in the right place—and that, for them, is the main thing.
Are these bishops consciously trying to win plaudits from the press and praise from the Euro elites for their “forward-looking” views? It’s hard to say. But it’s not difficult to imagine that they are subject to the same temptations as the rest of us—and that includes the temptation to pridefulness. That, more than anything else, may explain their uninformed pronouncements on everything from climate change to jihad. If the word “hubris” seems a bit strong, call it “self-satisfaction,” “intellectual complacency,” or “presumption.” Just don’t call it humility.
William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com
psd says
Liberal? haha
More like a Marxist. Take this quiz and see if you can figure out who said the given quotes: Pope Francis or Carl Marx?
Pope Francis vs. Karl Marx | Who Said It? | Communism and the Catholic Church
mortimer says
Pope Francis was chosen in a PALACE COUP at the Vatican by Third-World cardinals who are cultural Marxists.
Pope Francis is a cultural Marxist on whom they can count to preach the party line.
John C. Barile says
They weren’t Third-World Marxists. They were Fiirst-Worlders–Cardinals Danneels, Marx, Lehmann, Kaspar among them.
John C. Barile says
Cardinal Kasper, that is.
Dr. Divinity says
Seems like i can remember warrior popes from ages past.Maybe not the best of people but still warriors.
Timothius says
Pope Francis is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church. That is all. He is not scientist, politician, or anything other than the spiritual leader of his church. He would do well to remember that! I am personally wary of a person who is considered infallible by the church sticking his nose into a role other than the one given him by his religion .
11B40 says
Greetings:
The first game I started for my high school’s freshmen basketball team, my father came to see me play. On the drive home, we talked about the game and my play. It being a Catholic school, I had affected making the Sign of the Cross before shooting any foul shots. My father addressed that in his normal somewhat understated way. “You know,” he started, “God doesn’t care about your foul shooting. He cares about your immortal soul.”
Someone should tell that to Pope Francis.
John Stefan Obeda says
What the pope, all popes, are to preach is what Scripture preaches, the law and the Gospel, for instance, what the apostle Paul writes in the last verse of Romans 6: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” But, I’m afraid, many people would not care to hear this message.
psd says
“The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” But, I’m afraid, many people would not care to hear this message.
Yes, I don’t listen to such nonsense until I’m provided with the evidence that such “messages” are true. After all, you have as much evidence for your superstition as Muslims have for theirs.
The wages of sin is death! What does that even mean? It’s a vacuous comment.
the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Really? You surely need a lot of faith to buy that bill of goods.
Tracht says
William Kilpatrick should read more about the science of climate change. His focus on climate change denial casts doubts on the rest of his comments.
Angemon says
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and so it’s its negative.
Angemon says
“and so is its negative”
Damn autocorrector!
Angemon says
Indeed – someone should remind him that Papal infallibility only applies to Catholic doctrine.
Mark says
They say we are “uninformed” but I say they are “misinformed”.
John C. Barile says
I’ve shared a link to this Crisis Magazine article on my Facebook page. I’m impressed. It expresses what I think about this Pope’s prudential judgments. And there’s no doubt about the source’s orthodoxy and fidelity. I have the highest regard for truth and truth-tellers from whatever quarter they may be found.
mortimer says
REAL and TRUE humility bows before the facts of Islamic history…1400 years of depravity, depravation, invasion, assassination, genocide and enslavement…a river of blood flowing from Mohammed and his gangsters.
somehistory says
From the article: “Pride, as they say, goeth before a fall, ”
“As *they* say”?
Proverbs 16:18, in the Bible is where this is stated. Not by any *they.* “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
And it would seem that a person cannot be separated from his *ideas* so easily that one can be humble in his person, but prideful in his ideas. A person is composed of the entirety of self…mind, heart, etc.
So if the pope has pride in what he thinks, he has pride in himself.
He just seems to have come to the country to agree publicly with what o has said is the most important problem of the day….so-called *climate change*…and to deny that islam is a problem at all.
The two…o and the pope…essentially said the same thing…and both are wrong.