Let me give you a hypothetical. A millionaire advertises a contest
where he pays 10,000 $ to anyone who will dare to cross the English channel in
a homemade raft. The millionaire makes
it clear he doesn’t have infinite resources with which to rescue unfortunates,
i.e. there is some risk involved. The
event is scheduled with hundreds of entrants and successfully proceeds with
many winners and many losers who are fished out of the sea by the millionaire’s
rescue boats. NTL at sunset that day a
handful of rafts still remain unaccounted for.
Who would bear the blame for these tragedies in such a scenario?
Or how about this? A taco stand owner across from an
elementary school is asked by the school’s principal to deny service to any
children who do not use the crosswalk.
The owner wants to be cool with the kids-not to mention not lose
customers- so he ignores the school’s request, opening his generosity to all
comers – and even gives free goodies to the first children to arrive during
lunch hour. The lunchtime chaos
continues until one day a very speedy ten-year-old girl, outrunning her
classmates, charges out in front of a cement truck, sadly thinking it can brake
on a dime… Who would bear the blame for this
tragedy?
I recently found an article which summarizes Mediterranean
boat people death statistics since 2001. (http://mapreport.com/subtopics/d/migrant.boat.accident.html ) The
authors do not insert Francis’ July 2013 visit to Lampadusa where his Holiness railed against
restrictive immigration policies in order to show his solidarity with the cause of
Muslim boat people immigration, and where he called for Catholic churches around Italy to
open their doors to refugees, but they should have. The article’s grim statistics indicate that drownings in the Mediterranean after
His Holiness’ invitation to boat people dwarf the earlier tragedies. In another article the authors wonder why deaths have 'soared' over the past two years. The total number of drownings from 2001 to
July 2013 was less than 1000, averaging about 100 per year. Since that time the number has ‘soared’ to
about 2500 per year— a 25 fold, 2500% increase. All this has occurred despite the Italian
coast guard stepping up vigorous rescue operations.
I know the post- hoc -ergo -proper -hoc fallacy certainly haunts my
inkling that Pope Francis’ well-intentioned words have cost thousands
of desperate people, to include women and children, their lives. Please feel
free to challenge me and let me know what has happened since July 2013, besides
Francis’ open invitation, which might have caused so many more people to risk
not only theirs but also their childrens’ lives. Couldn't he have also cautioned Muslims not to risk their lives on the high seas?
Pope Francis’ venture onto the world political stage, in
July 2013 at Lampadusa, Italy, would not be the first well-meaning papal
initiative to have had tragic consequences.
I believe it was Pius XI who convinced the Cristeros of the Mexican
government’s good faith and the need for the Cristeros’ theretofore invincible
army to lay down its arms and go home. Distinguished
French-Mexican Historian Jean Meyer has chronicled how 5,000 Cristero leaders
were then hunted down and murdered. There
are probably many better examples of popes whose good faith actions have lead
to tragic unintended consequences.
While we are discussing Pius’, let me bring up Pius XII
discretion during WWII. Most of us are
familiar with the accusations thrown at Pius XII for not being more vocal
against and more provocative with the Nazis.
The other day I read that Pius XII actually was convinced that additional
public haranguing – e.g. excommunicating Catholic Nazis who hadn’t been to Mass
in decades – would likely only lead to invigorated crackdowns and hundreds of
thousands more victims being rounded up.
Pius XII’s course of action was the opposite of grandstanding and was
geared to saving as many lives as he possibly could. His course of action turned out to be right.
No comments:
Post a Comment