When posterity draws a more definitive profile of Pope Francis, I believe five words he uttered in relation to gay priests will be his seminal gift to religious faith and our humanity. “Who am I to judge?” In these words, Pope Francis echoed more the skeptical approach of secular thought than the certainty of religious doctrine. He had the courage to set aside papal adherence and trust to the infallibility of church dogma and admit the limits of human judgment. The hubris that makes people speak for God gave way to the sense of finitude of the human capacity for moral and intellectual judgment.
By uttering these words, Pope Francis first reminded everybody that humanity, that is, the essential qualities of human nature should not be judged with prejudice or hostility. It was in that regard that Pope Francis spoke with compassion about marginalized people: immigrants, the poor and homeless, the weak, persons with disabilities, and LGBTQ people. Thus, he told the world these people are not Them, they are Us.
Those words were also, no matter how small, a step away from strict theological dogma. They reflected a sense of doubt about a long-standing doctrinal position of the Church. History teaches us that humanity (in both its meanings as our human qualities and as masses of people) has suffered under religious and secular visions of what the absolute truth is that we should all follow. Christianity itself did not manage to escape from this tendency to cling to an absolute truth.
Almost 2000 years ago the winning side of Christianity chose to turn Jesus’s ethical teachings into a canon of dogmatic theological beliefs and doctrinal positions that became the only “true” (orthodox) version of Christianity. That was, of course, the reaction to the circulation of a multitude of alternative beliefs about the nature of Christ Himself, that were eventually declared as heresies by the winning side. Thus, what became mainstream Christianity was the product of an early display of intolerance to different interpretations of the Christian faith.
However, this forced consolidation of mainstream Christian faith in the Nicene Creed (following the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE) on what was deemed to be the only true belief proved to be ephemeral. First the Roman Catholic Church split from the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 11th century over whether the Holly Spirit derives from the Father and the Son or only from the Father. And then several centuries later the Western Church itself split as a result of the Protestant Reformation. That shows that eternal truths are anything but that.
Tragically, these partings of ways were not done in amicable terms. They entailed wars, persecutions, and untold human suffering. Adherence to dogmatic positions had generations of the faithful believe that the sun revolves around the earth and that scientific and philosophical thought ought to be handmaidens of the faith. Of course, we have seen the same intolerance to different religious viewpoints within other religions. The Islamic world is still at war between its two branches of Shia and Sunnis. And secular dogma as to what the superior political order is gave us the millions of deaths under Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
So, when a religious leader of the stature of a Pope, questions the power endowed to him to stick to a particular dogma and condemn some people; and when the same leader declares that diversity of faiths is good since people understand God in different ways, we should welcome it as a sign of human progress.
And yet, this pope of compassion and self-introspection was not popular with all his flock, especially here in America. Many Catholics as well as Christians of other denominations disapproved of his stances on immigration, poverty, materialism, climate change and environmental sustainability. This happens to epitomize the painful conundrum of people of faith who must reconcile religious teachings and political views in a world of political and social tensions. How can an American Christian square his or her political views that immigrants are a national threat and that social programs promote laziness with the Christian message of treating your enemy like yourself and tending to the weak and those left behind? How can an American Christian live a life of modesty and humility as Jesus taught in a supercharged consumerist society where wealth-seeking and accumulation are celebrated as tokens of noble aspirations and success? And how can Christians accept to live with moderation for the sake of the environment and our planet when every message around them calls for more consumption? In fact, these questions hold for all humanity, both religious and secular.
Our modern world is one of abundance and scarcity, of uneven prosperity and poverty, of ease of doing things and yet of growing complexity, and one of expanding rights for those who were repressed in the past. Religions were established many centuries ago in a much simpler world with different conditions and social hierarchies and norms, many of them violating human dignity as we understand it now. Standing by past moral and ethical precepts while our understanding evolves with knowledge and appreciation of human rights is what inevitably creates the tension between religious beliefs and modern attitudes.
If we are going to ease this tension without insufferable confrontations, we need healthy skepticism and doubt, guided by a more universal understanding of what the enduring values of humanity are before we fall victims of runaway material and scientific excesses.
In pursuing this march toward a more peaceful and benevolent species, the words “Who Am I to judge?” as a call for measured and compassionate action are words worth listening to.
Let's Reason 