Challenging Pope Francis’s Equivalence of Abortion and Xenophobia
Pope Francis on Friday described the choice US voters must make in the presidential election as one between the “lesser of two evils,” deeming former President Donald Trump’s anti-migrant policies and Vice President Kamala Harris’ support of abortion rights as both being “against life.”
“One must choose the lesser of two evils. Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know,” Francis said during a press conference on the papal plane, referring to Harris and Trump. “Everyone with a conscience should think on this and do it.”
Pope Francis recently asserted that both abortion and xenophobia are “evil,” that is, “against life,” a statement that merits critical examination. In equating these two distinct issues, the Pope overlooks fundamental differences in their underlying motivations. Xenophobia, by its nature, is rooted in fear and hatred of those perceived as different—a sentiment that has historically fueled division and discrimination. Abortion, however, is not driven by hate. Instead, it is a deeply personal decision often made in complex circumstances, reflecting considerations of health, autonomy, and ethical dilemmas. To equate the two as comparable evils is to overlook the nuances and the context in which these decisions are made.
Hate, by definition, is destructive and corrosive, an impulse that tears at the fabric of human solidarity. It is unequivocally wrong, breeding cycles of violence and discrimination. Abortion, while morally and ethically complex, may be justified in certain circumstances—such as when the health of the mother is at risk, or when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. These situations demand empathy and understanding, rather than condemnation.
The Pope’s agnostic stance on which issue constitutes the “lesser evil” is problematic. By failing to discern between the motivations and consequences of these actions, he risks simplifying issues that require nuanced understanding and compassionate judgment. This stance hinders the ability to provide clear moral guidance to those seeking spiritual direction in a world rife with moral complexities.
Moreover, Pope Francis’s steadfast adherence to traditional doctrines about the inception of human life may further cloud his judgment. Emerging discussions around consciousness and reports of near-death experiences suggest that human life and consciousness may not be solely confined to biological beginnings. The idea that life might be intertwined with broader metaphysical or karmic connections challenges the simplistic equation of conception with the start of life. This broader perspective could provide a more holistic approach to spiritual guidance and ethical decision-making.
In the political realm, the Pope’s perspective is especially critical when evaluating the moral fitness of candidates. In a world where leaders are scrutinized for their ethical stances and personal integrity, the Pope’s reluctance to differentiate between candidates based on their moral and ethical records is concerning. A candidate may be unfit for office due to his moral turpitude and his malignant narcissism, while the other may be deemed fit due to her credentials, experience, empathy, and commitment to the common good. A failure to recognize these distinctions undercuts the potential for moral leadership and informed decision-making.
In conclusion, Pope Francis’s false equivalence of abortion and xenophobia represents a significant misjudgment in moral reasoning. By failing to appreciate the distinct motivations and ethical nuances involved in abortion, and by holding an agnostic stance on moral evils, the Pope risks offering inadequate spiritual and moral guidance. A more measured approach, one that considers the broader implications of human life and the ethical weight of leadership, would serve his followers and the broader global community more effectively.
Pope Francis has taken a measured stance on the political crisis in Venezuela, particularly in light of President Nicolás Maduro’s dishonest claim of victory in the 2024 election, which international observers such as the United Nations and the Carter Center have deemed rigged. In his public statements, Pope Francis has urged all parties in Venezuela to “seek the truth” and to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes peacefully, while ignoring the authoritarian regime’s well-documented human rights violations and abuse of power. This approach underscores his commitment to non-violence and non-resistance to evil, as well as his appeal for moderation amidst escalating tensions and violence following the election.
However, reconciling the Pope’s appeasement stance with a spiritual commitment to truth can be challenging, especially when evidence suggests a clear outcome, as in the case of Maduro’s election loss. The Church’s approach often emphasizes dialogue and peace, aiming to mediate rather than confront directly. This can constitute appeasement, particularly when historical parallels, like the Church’s stance during the Nazi era, are considered.
The Church’s focus on dialogue and non-violence is rooted in its mission to foster reconciliation and avoid further conflict. However, this approach can be considered as complicity if it results in inaction in the face of clear injustices. Silence becomes complicit when it allows wrongdoing to persist unchallenged, potentially undermining the Church’s moral authority.
Balancing diplomacy with a commitment to truth requires the Church to actively engage in advocating for transparency and justice, even while promoting peace. This involves not only calling for dialogue but also supporting efforts to uncover and acknowledge the truth, ensuring that its stance does not inadvertently support oppressive regimes. The Church must continually assess its role and actions to ensure they align with its spiritual and moral obligations to uphold truth and justice. There can be no lasting peace without justice.
In late January, standing before a crowd of more than a hundred evangelical Christians and pastors, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro affirmed his faith in Christ. “I believe in Christ the Redeemer, the Christ of the peoples that faced the Pharisees, the brave Christ that sought justice and equality,” he said to great applause. Maduro then publicly ordered his staff to prioritize evangelical churches’ access to radio stations and announced that his government would start a welfare program to renovate churches and give bonuses to pastors.
Should Pope Francis Emulate the Example of Jesus Speaking Truth to Power?
Here are some notable instances where Jesus speaks truth to power in the Gospels:
Matthew 23:27-28: Jesus criticizes the religious leaders, saying, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”
John 18:37: During his trial before Pilate, Jesus says, “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Mark 12:38-40: Jesus warns about the scribes, saying, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”
Luke 11:39-40: Jesus addresses the Pharisees, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?”
Matthew 21:12-13: In the cleansing of the temple, Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers and says, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
These passages illustrate Jesus’s willingness to confront and challenge the authorities and religious leaders of his time, emphasizing integrity, justice, and true spiritual understanding.
