What Trump can learn from Francis

Or rather, what he can learn from Francis’ actions

The death of every famous person — entertainment celebrity, politician, religious leader, etc. — reminds all of us that death is inevitable. We search for the “reason” this person died in order to assuage our fears that the cause of death for this other person does not foreshadow my proximate demise. Yet, the simple reason this person died is that he was born, that is, each of us will die, sooner or later, lingering on a deathbed or suddenly while awake or asleep. The inevitability of death is the first lesson that each of us —peasant, patrician, or president — can, take from the life and death of Francis.

The second lesson that each of us, especially political and social leaders of a rank approximate to the papacy, can take concerns the legacy one bequeaths to the world. The impact of the actions taken during one’s life will last for some period of time, perhaps only days, or weeks at best, or, those actions will have impact the resonates in society for decades, even centuries, or in at least one case, millennia. Only in hindsight will we know if Francis’ actions will have the impact of some of his predecessors, though we know with certainty that his actions will not have the millennia-lasting impact of the Church’s Head that Francis tried to serve faithfully.

Which brings us to the third lesson that an examination of the life and death of Francis can provide President Trump —a recognition that one labors to preserve and protect a structure that rests on a foundation set by others, not to presume to be able to exceed the performance of the Founders. Francis strove to make the Church more true to the vision of its Founders, but he did not, as some claim, seek to dig up the foundations of the Church via usurpation of the dogma and doctrines that Jesus of Nazareth, the Apostles, and early Church Fathers propounded. With the exception of the Church’s declaration that Capital Punishment is “inadmissible” (not further defined), Francis’ actions, focused on the Mercy of God and compassion towards the poor and those on the margins of society, rests firmly within the mainstream of Christian morality. Trump should learn from this.

In his efforts to speed up the deportation of violent criminals illegally present in the United States, Trump risks undermining the very foundations of the American Republic. Rather than work within the standard procedures, he seeks to avoid delay by using questionable practices that may violate U.S. law. Worse, he regularly impugns the character of members of the Federal Judiciary when all he need do is use the appellate process available. Worst of all, he and senior members of the current Administration imply that they will flaunt Judicial decisions and proceed as they wish regardless of Court rulings. It is this last that is most worrisome, for that would not be an attack on the procedures that arguably need reform, but an attack on the foundation of the United States Constitution.

Unfortunately for the nation, the political opposition and most of the media fall into Trump’s trap of personalizing all his policy action, not unlike what opponents of Francis’ actions often did. Though it is far easier to condemn Trump and say all would be well if he were not President, it is intellectually lazy. It is also condemned by both Athens and Jerusalem-based teachings on not judging others, as Francis said, “who am I to judge?” when asked to judge a person, not a practice or action. Both Trump and his opponents would rather judge the person, not the actions, for making an assessment of the actions of someone takes real mental effort and involves a thorough, humble, honest evaluation of the utility and fairness of one’s own actions or alternatives proposed by others. Much easier to say “he’s a bad man” than to analyze the plusses and minuses of the man’s policy proposals or actions.

Condemning Trump as a “bad man” also serves to energize his desire to be seen as the most consequential President ever. With Trump, it is hard to know whether he really believes that he can be as consequential, in a positive way, as were his Republican predecessors Reagan, T. Roosevelt, and Lincoln. It is also difficult to assess whether he understands that any positive reforms he means to undertake should be improvements to how things operate in the institution that he will temporary direct, but not cause damage to the foundation and the building itself. In this way, Francis had an advantage in retaining the humility needed to appreciate the limits to his reform program —he recognized the Founder of the Church as the Son of God, so improving on the Church’s foundation as set by Jesus was out of the question.

Not so for Trump —he does not seem to recognize that the founders of the U.S. Republic were truly exceptional leaders that created something that does not need major overhaul. He seems to believe that he has the capacity to realign the Constitution without damaging the Republic that rests on that foundational document. Unlike Francis, who at times faced push-back from senior Church leaders that disagreed with his proposals, Trump seems to be surrounded by many who put personal loyalty to him over loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, which does not bode well for President Trump restraining his ambitions to be the most consequential President ever, and thereby take actions that will damage the Republic’s foundation. I say seems, for no one can read the heart and mind of another, and “who am I to judge?”.