The Pope left the USA with key messages that define his Papacy. Those messages could be understood by what he said, what he did not say and what emphasis he put on his statements.
First, he made the fight for environmental protection a crucial part of his message every time he spoke in a political forum. Moreover, he linked environmental degradation with poverty. His language about this topic has been clear, specific and emphatic. It is very much in line with those of the UN and specialized agencies.
Second, he emphasized the need for social inclusion and poverty reduction. In this regards, he focused mainly on objectives rather than means. He has not been specific on solutions for poverty perhaps understandably given the complexity of the problem. However, he did mention at least in one occasion a policy tool relevant for poverty reduction: “decent” salaries.
Third, he reiterated his stance in favor of helping refugees and immigrants irrespective of their religion or origin. This message was reiterated several times and acquired particular importance in view of the situation prevailing in Europe and the controversies surrounding immigration policies in the USA.
Fourth, the Pope was emphatic in denouncing arms trade and reaffirming his support for diplomacy. He reiterated his support for USA/Cuba diplomatic relations (to which he personally contributed) and for the agreement with Iran. He has been mentioned as a contributor to the peace (initial) agreement between the Colombian government and the guerrilla movement reached soon after he left Cuba for the USA.
Fifth, he restated the Church position on matters of doctrine although, it must be admitted, he was less forceful than expected in conservative circles. He emphasized the defense for the ‘traditional’ family. In this regard, he did mention the lack of enthusiasm by the young to start a family. However, he never referred specifically to same sex marriages. He did not mention divorce either. He surely knows that divorce and “open” marriages threatened traditional marriages more than same sex couples. He also defended life “in whatever stage of development” it was, a veiled reference to abortion. But he was more specific in his opposition to the death penalty, something more amenable to policy actions in the short term.
Sixth, the Pope was very clear in his views about international financial matters. At the UN, he joined several countries in denouncing the policies of international financial institutions and the “unfair and disproportionate” influence of developed countries in their deciding-making bodies. He advocated the creation of international mechanisms to deal with sovereign debt issues, something supported by prominent economists and most countries but opposed by the USA and the majority of the industrialized nations. This is a topic very relevant for Argentina which restructured its debts almost ten years ago but is battling a New York Judge on a related matter. The Pope voiced reservations about economic globalization in the present form.
Several conclusions may be reached by analyzing the speeches and attitudes of Pope Francis in this trip. He underscored current dominant issues, those ones amenable to policy actions, while stressing his doctrinal views in a less militant fashion. The Pope knows the practical limits of his power on doctrinal matters and this was reflected in his speeches and attitudes: the Church is not vocal against divorce, contraceptives and premarital sex. Opposition to same sex marriages is, judging by recent statements and actions, less intense. Similarly, opposition to abortion is less prominent. These weaknesses or omissions on matters of doctrines have disappointed right wing organizations. Some have started expressing such disappointments albeit timidly.
The press accentuated the religious calls of the Pope. But such calls do not explain why this trip created so much expectations and public attention. It was the Pope’s repeated emphasis on matters of daily concerns, on poverty, environment degradation and arms trade, among others, that made this trip singular. His meetings with immigrants, homeless and inmates touched the nerves of the political debate within the USA.
To sum up, this trip went beyond a religious event. But its final impact on public affairs is yet to be seen, in the USA and in other countries.