TIME Spain

Spanish Town Finally Drops ‘Kill Jews’ Name

Will now be called "Castrillo Mota de Judios, or "Jews' Hill Camp"

A Spanish village with a name that translates to “Camp Kill Jews” has finally officially changed its name to Castrillo Mota de Judios, or “Jews’ Hill Camp.”

Residents of Castrillo Matajudios first voted to change the name last year, with 29 of the village’s 57 inhabitants voting in favor of the change. The name change has now been approved by the regional government of Castilla y Leon, the Associated Press reports.

The town’s former name, which dates back to 1627, was especially puzzling due to the fact that the town was founded by Jews fleeing from pogroms in 1035. Today, the town has no Jewish residents, despite its official shield containing the Star of David.

Spain has a checkered history of treatment towards Jewish residents, including a 1492 edict that ordered Jews to convert to Catholicism or leave the country. In early June, Spain’s lower house of parliament approved a law paving a pathway to citizenship for descendants of Jews who were forced to leave the country during the inquisition.

According to the AP, researchers believe the village actually got its name from Jewish residents who wanted to bolster the believability of their conversion.


Read next: The Forgotten Brutality of Female Nazi Concentration Camp Guards

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME Religion

What Today’s Boundaries Mean for Inclusion

David Wolpe is the Max Webb Senior Rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles.

Our challenge is to live with lines but understand that they will shift

Most of the great issues in society today are boundary issues. Some are literally about borders—immigration, for example, or territory and sovereignty disputes. But many boundary arguments, such as those about inclusion, are more metaphorical. Should the LGBT community have the same legal rights as the straight community? Can someone who was born Caucasian pass as African American? Can someone change genders, and what are the implications of such a choice?

Increasingly, the pressure is against setting boundaries. Restriction, limitation and exclusion all seem sides of the same attempt to keep privileges for some and not permit them to others. While recognizing that boundaries keep us safe—the walls of our homes, the bars of the prison, the lines on the road—we feel uneasy when they are used to keep some outside.

Religious communities constantly grapple with the question of who belongs. Clergy puzzle over intermarriages and maintaining faith traditions in blended families. Worldwide faith traditions wonder how to keep cohesion when practices and assumptions differ so greatly in different communities. Who has the right to proclaim that this person is a legitimate clergyman and that one is not? But is there anything left to a religion if someone can simply stand up and say, “I have just decided I am a Rabbi/Priest/Minister/Imam”?

These are not easy questions. Institutions keep their integrity in part by exclusion. If every student were permitted into Harvard University, it would no longer be Harvard. If everyone who wanted to be a citizen of the U.S. could simply declare his own citizenship, the U.S. would cease to be a sovereign nation. The flip side of the uncomfortable feeling of boundaries is their ineradicable necessity. Wars are fought about boundaries; they are the lines by which we live.

Ours is a culture of grievance, where taking offense is always legitimate but giving it rarely is. Therefore the one who wishes to proclaim boundaries is asking for trouble. Diversity and multiculturalism are built on the porousness of boundaries while simultaneously suspicious of them: Members of minorities are a clearly self-defined group, but exclusion of any kind is the most charged accusation. We very strictly define those who have traditionally been excluded, creating a boundary to help a group overcome a boundary. Such ideas with all their concomitant confusions have taken a powerful hold on our campuses.

We are born with boundaries, the very body that is a barrier to the outside world even as it is open to that same world. We are practiced in respecting lines and changing them. Each group in society defines the lines in ways favorable to them. Even those who protest about boundaries generally wish them to be drawn as well, just differently. Our challenge is to live with lines but understand that they will be shifted and reevaluated.

The best guide may be Edwin Markham’s poem “Outwitted”:

He drew a circle that shut me out –
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him in!

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME faith

Billy Graham’s Grandson Resigns From Megachurch After Affair

Billy Graham Birthday Party
Alicia Funderburk — Getty Images William Graham Tullian Tchividjian attends the Billy Graham birthday party on November 7, 2013 in Asheville, United States.

Tullian Tchividjian is the fourth Florida megachurch pastor to resign over an affair

A grandson of the influential evangelical pastor Billy Graham has resigned from the pulpit at a high-profile church in South Florida after church leaders discovered he was having an affair.

Tullian Tchividjian said that he returned from a trip a few months ago to find his wife having an affair, and that he in turn went on to a friend with whom he “sought comfort,” in a statement to the Washington Post. “I resigned from my position at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church today due to ongoing marital issues.”

“Both my wife and I are heartbroken over our actions,” he said.

The pastor, 42, has three children with his wife, Kim. Tchividjian was widely considered a rising star in evangelical circles and is the fourth Florida megachurch pastor to resign after having affairs, according to the Post.

Tchividjian’s grandfather, the 96-year-old Billy Graham, was an adviser to U.S. presidents including Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson.

[Washington Post]

TIME Religion

Charleston Church Holds First Worship Service Since Massacre

Nine people were killed during a shooting at a Bible study group last Wednesday

The historic black church in Charleston, S.C., where a gunman killed nine people last week held its first postmassacre worship service Sunday, bringing a sense of unity to the shattered city as law-enforcement officials continued to probe the suspect’s motives.

A large crowd attended the service inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, where parishioners honored the victims through song and prayer. The Associated Press reports uniformed police officers were stationed throughout the church for the service, which Governor Nikki Haley and her family were expected to attend, along with many newcomers.

Among those killed in Wednesday night’s shooting at a Bible study group was the church’s pastor, the Rev. Clementa Pinckney. On Sunday, the Rev. Norvel Goff, who was picked to lead the church until a successor is named, said the aftermath of the massacre has “been tough” but that the community will continue to “pursue justice.”

“We’re going to be vigilant,” he said, “and we are going to hold our elected officials accountable to do the right thing.”

Authorities are continuing to investigate the motives of the suspected gunman, Dylann Roof. The 21-year-old was apprehended in North Carolina on Thursday and later transported back to South Carolina, where he was charged with nine counts of murder and one count of weapon possession.

Sunday’s service came one day after authorities announced they were investigating a hate site linked to Roof that held dozens of pictures and a racially charged manifesto.

TIME Religion

Muhammad Cartoons Are Offensive, But Not for the Reason You Think

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative's Houston-based founder, speaks during an interview in New York on May 28, 2015.
Brendan McDermid—Reuters Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative's founder, speaks during an interview in New York May 28, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Jordan Denari is a Research Fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, where she works for the Bridge Initiative, a research project on Islamophobia.

These cartoons contribute to a climate of fear in which Muslims are seen as a threat

If you find yourself driving through St. Louis or rural Arkansas in the coming weeks, you may come across billboards depicting Islam’s prophet Muhammad. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), the group led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer that organized last month’s Draw Muhammad event in Garland, Texas, is promoting ads featuring the contest’s winning cartoon: an image of an angry, sword-wielding Muhammad lunging forward toward the hands of the artist who drew him.

The news coverage of AFDI’s recent effort—as well as others’ plans to disseminate Muhammad cartoons—has been accompanied by attempts to explain why displaying these violent drawings is problematic or offensive. Journalists and commentators often diagnose the problem this way: Many Muslims disapprove of depictions of their prophet, and thus some may retaliate violently against them. But this characterization ignores the cartoons’ real implications. Actively spreading these cartoons is offensive because it contributes to an existing climate of fear in which Muslims are seen as a threat—a climate that endangers Muslims in the West.

These cartoons play into the worst stereotypes about Muslims. Almost all of the cartoons displayed at the Garland contest portrayed Muhammad in a negative light, showing the prophet as violent, backward, sexually perverted, and intolerant of non-Muslims. Out of dozens of cartoons posted on AFDI’s Facebook page, only three can be interpreted as neutral.

Like the cartoons, media representations of Muslims tend to be negative. Content analysis research from MediaTenor, an international media research institute, found that media coverage of Muslims and Islam is at an all time low. MediaTenor, which has analyzed more 2 million news stories from 10 outlets in the U.S., the U.K. and Germany since before 9/11, found that in 2014, 80% of stories about Muslims portrayed them in a negative light. News media, political discourse, and even entertainment often advance the same memes found in the AFDI cartoons: Islam is more likely to inspire people to violence; Muslim men are barbaric; Muslim women are oppressed; and Islamic culture is antithetical to progress or diversity.

This monolithic, negative portrayal provides a skewed image of Islam and Muslims. It excludes the manifestations of Islam as it’s lived by ordinary Muslims, and doesn’t reflect how Muslims view their religion and their prophet—as promoters of justice and peace. It also ignores the fact that the number of attacks committed by Muslims in Western societies is quite low. In the last five years, only 2% of all terrorist attacks in Europe have been “religiously motivated.” Muslims have carried out only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 1980.

Though attacks against Muslims in the West receive little coverage, they have been far more widespread. Since December 2014, at least five Muslims in the U.S. and Canada have been killed—including three young family members in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in April—in attacks that many believe were motivated by Islamophobic bias. Across the U.S., police are investigating other murders of Muslims, verbal threats, physical attacks, and mosque vandalisms that have occurred in recent months. Muslim civil rights organizations have also noticed a considerable uptick in attacks against Muslims since the rise of ISIS.

Islamophobic incidents in Europe have also risen. From mid-2012 to mid-2014, anti-Muslim attacks increased considerably in London, according to the U.K.-based monitoring organization, TellMAMA. A recent study from Teesside University found that spikes occurred in the wake of “jihadi” attacks in Paris, Sydney, and Copenhagen. Anti-Muslim incidents in France also increased steadily from 2005 to 2013. In the two days after the Charlie Hebdo attack in January, TellMAMA counted 15 major attacks against Muslims or Muslim institutions in France.

Muslims make up a minority religious community that is constantly demonized in the media and political discourse in the West. In this climate, ordinary people—who perhaps have never met a Muslim—have been responding to the depiction they’ve been fed for decades: that Muslims and their religion are a threat to the well-being of Western society. That’s what Jon Ritzheimer did when he organized the anti-Islam rally last month outside a mosque in Phoenix, Arizona, which was attended by protestors armed with military-grade weapons. And it’s what Jerry DeLemus and Dean Remington are doing with their respective plans to organize a Geller-inspired Muhammad cartoon contest in New Hampshire and an anti-Islam rally in Tucson.

But these threats are only perceptions—misperceptions—grounded not in facts or personal experience but in propagandistic portrayals. AFDI’s Muhammad ads make Muslims, the demonized group, actually look like the demonizer. The group’s latest campaigns contribute to these misperceptions and the more general climate in which Muslims are depicted as an existential threat and therefore treated as such.

During a period when anti-Muslim attacks are already high, these ads make Muslims feel less safe, and they’re right to be upset about the promotion of these cartoons. In fact, we should all take offense to their dissemination. In diverse, pluralistic societies, Muslims and non-Muslims alike should not stand by as an entire religious group is made to look like the enemy.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Religion

Karenna Gore: Pope Francis Reminds Us To Come Together for Climate Solutions

Pope Francis waves to the faithful as he arrives in St. Peter's Square for a meeting with the Roman Diocesans on June 14, 2015 in Vatican City.
Franco Origlia—Getty Images Pope Francis waves to the faithful as he arrives in St. Peter's Square for a meeting with the Roman Diocesans on June 14, 2015 in Vatican City.

Karenna Gore, director of the Center for Earth Ethics at Union Theological Seminary, talks to TIME about Pope Francis's encyclical on the environment

What do you think about Pope Francis’s encyclical, released Thursday?

It offers an important moment for us to think about humanity’s relationship to nature. Pope Francis describes how we are a part of nature and interconnected with the rest of the natural world. We can all take it in with open minds and hearts. This is a big breath of fresh air into our capacity to come together around solutions.

How is this different from past comments from the Vatican on climate change?

There has been powerful language on ecology from the Vatican before, but Pope Francis has a distinct voice. Not only is he presenting this in moral and religious terms, he’s also coming at it with the sensibility of someone who is dedicated to emulating St. Francis and challenging our way of thinking. From his past statements, it seems that he sees the deep, root cause of the climate crisis in the paradigm of putting short-term financial gain for a few over the well being of the whole. That’s a really powerful way to look at it.

What’s the importance of the format of an encyclical?

Sharing his message as an encyclical has significance beyond comments the pope has made in the past because it’s a very considered document that we know has been drafted, edited, and read by people close to him and by other authority figures in the Vatican. It’s his first major teaching letter, and it’s a statement of moral philosophy that will go down in history in an epic way. This gives cause to pay attention on a different level.

Recently some politicians have said religion should stay out of science and politics—what do you think?

I don’t understand the need for these rigid categories, especially when we’re talking about the air that we breathe. We need morality in our political decision-making, and our wisdom and faith traditions are a good place to find guidance.

What more can we do to combat climate change?

Spirituality can call people to a higher level of consciousness about what is truly valuable. There is so much we can do to act on this. People of faith—and also nonreligious people who are committed to ethics and morality—can help the civic sphere to develop another way to measure well being—an alternative to GDP. The problem with measuring things in short-term profit through the sale of products is that most everything of real value is sacrificed—plant life rooted to the earth, clean bodies of water to be enjoyed by all, traditional self-sufficient communities, for example. The poor are cast aside and burdened with pollution. Also, a hugely significant moral fact is that the well being of future generations isn’t valued. As Pope Francis puts it, this way of life hurts the richness and beauty of the earth and makes it “ever more limited and grey, even as technological advances and consumer goods continue to abound limitlessly.”

We can also take actions such as divesting from fossil fuels and helping connect locally rooted environmental struggles to the larger conversation. We aren’t going to be able to measure these efforts with price tags. But as human beings, we are capable of holding that in our minds as we make political decisions. I hope we can gain strength and inspiration from the encyclical to continue this work.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME faith

Exclusive: Patriarch Bartholomew on Pope Francis’ Climate Encyclical

Pope Francis (L) and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople speak to the faithful after the Divine Liturgy at the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 30, 2014 in in Istanbul.
Gokhan Tan—Getty Images Pope Francis (L) and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople speak to the faithful after the Divine Liturgy at the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 30, 2014 in in Istanbul.

Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Ecology, Economy and Ecumenism

In a series of seminars organized between 1994 and 1998 on the island of Halki off the coast of Istanbul in Turkey, we drew attention to the close connection between ecology and economy. Both terms share the Greek root oikos, which signifies “home.” It therefore came as no surprise to us that our beloved brother Francis of Rome opens his encyclical, which is being released today in the New Synod Hall of the Vatican, with a reference to God’s creation as “our common home.”

Nor again did it come as a surprise to us that Pope Francis underlined the ecumenical dimension of creation care – the term “ecumenism” also shares the same etymological origin as the words “ecology” and “economy.” The truth is that, above any doctrinal differences that may characterize the various Christian confessions and beyond any religious disagreements that may separate the various faith communities, the earth unites us in a unique and extraordinary manner. All of us ultimately share the earth beneath our feet and breathe the same air of our planet’s atmosphere. Even if we do not do enjoy the world’s resources fairly or justly, nevertheless all of us are responsible for its protection and preservation. This is precisely why today’s papal encyclical speaks of the need for “a new dialogue,” “a process of education,” and “urgent action.”

How can one not be moved by the criticism of our “culture of waste” or the emphasis on “the common good” and “the common destination of goods”? And what of the vital importance attributed to the global problem of clean water, which we have underlined for over two decades as we assembled scientists, politicians and activists to explore the challenges of the Mediterranean Sea (1995), the Black Sea (1997), the Danube River (1999), the Adriatic Sea (2002), the Baltic Sea (2003), the Amazon River (2006), the Arctic Sea (2007) and the Mississippi River (2009)? Water is arguably the most divine symbol in the world’s religions and, at the same time, the most divisive element of our planet’s resources.

In the final analysis, however, any dissent over land or water inevitably results in what the Pope’s statement calls “a decline in the quality of human life and a breakdown of society.” How could it possibly be otherwise? After all, concern for the natural environment is directly related to concern for issues of social justice, and particularly of world hunger. A church that neglects to pray for the natural environment is a church that refuses to offer food and drink to a suffering humanity. At the same time, a society that ignores the mandate to care for all human beings is a society that mistreats the very creation of God.

Therefore, the Pope’s diagnosis is on the mark: “We are not faced with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather one complex crisis which is both social and environmental.” Indeed, as he continues to advance, we require “an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the underprivileged, and at the same time protecting nature.” It is also no surprise, then, that the Pope is concerned about and committed to issues like employment and housing.

Invoking the inspiring words of Scripture and the classics of Christian spirituality of East and West (particularly such saints as Basil the Great and Francis of Assisi), while at the same time evoking the precious works of Roman Catholic conferences of bishops throughout the world (especially in regions where the plunder of the earth is identified with the plight of the poor), Pope Francis proposes new paradigms and new policies in contrast to those of “determinism,” “disregard” and “domination.”

In 1997, we humbly submitted that harming God’s creation was tantamount to sin. We are especially grateful to Pope Francis for recognizing our insistence on the need to broaden our narrow and individualistic concept of sin; and we welcome his stress on “ecological conversion” and “reconciliation with creation.” Moreover, we applaud the priority that the papal encyclical places on “the celebration of rest.” The virtue of contemplation or silence reflects the quality of waiting and depending on God’s grace; and by the same token, the discipline of fasting or frugality reveals the power of not-wanting or wanting less. Both qualities are critical in a culture that stresses the need to hurry, the preeminence of individual “wants” over global “needs.”

In the third year of our brother Pope Francis’s blessed ministry, we count it as a true blessing that we are able to share a common concern and a common vision for God’s creation. As we stated in our joint declaration during our pilgrimage to Jerusalem last year:

“It is our profound conviction that the future of the human family depends also on how we safeguard – both prudently and compassionately, with justice and fairness – the gift of creation that our Creator has entrusted to us … Together, we pledge our commitment to raising awareness about the stewardship of creation; we appeal to all people of goodwill to consider ways of living less wastefully and more frugally, manifesting less greed and more generosity for the protection of God’s world and the benefit of His people.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Religion

The 5 Most Important Points of Pope Francis’s Climate Change Encyclical

Pope Francis on June 13, 2015 in Vatican City.
Franco Origlia—Getty Images Pope Francis on June 13, 2015 in Vatican City.

Christopher Hale is executive director at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and the co-founder of Millennial.

We can and must make things better

Pope Francis’s groundbreaking encyclical letter on care for creation made its anticipated debut Thursday morning, and once again, the Bishop of Rome has delivered a masterpiece. The document will play a key role in United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference this November and will be a pivotal point of debate as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up here at home. So what exactly does the pope address in this letter? Here are the top five points in what Francis describes as a “dialogue with all people about our common home.”

1. Climate change is real, and it’s getting worse. Though some politicians in the U.S. still argue about the reality of the climate change, Pope Francis doesn’t mince words: “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day,” he says. “If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.”

2. Human beings are a major contributor to climate change. While many agree that climate change is real, some believe that human beings don’t contribute to it. The science suggests otherwise, and Pope Francis—a trained chemist—says human beings do have an effect on the Earth: “We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.”

3. Climate change disproportionately affects the poor. Climate change’s worst impact, Pope Francis says, “will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry.” This environmental inequality creates a strange economic phenomenon: Poor countries are often financially indebted to rich countries. The world has what Pope Francis calls a “social debt towards the poor … because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity.”

4. We can and must make things better. Some of those who study climate change believe this process to be irreversible, too far gone. But Francis—whose first major letter was entitled Joy of the Gospel—says he doesn’t believe we should be robbed of hope. “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start”

5. Individuals can help, but politicians must lead the charge. Francis argues that personal responsibility is an important step toward reversing climate change, but that political and structural transformations are needed for lasting change. “Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies.”

Some politicians argue that Pope Francis and the Catholic Church should stay out of climate change debates and “leave science to the scientists.” But Francis and the church know that protecting creation is first and foremost a moral and religious issue. It’s a response to God’s ancient request that we preserve, protect, and sustain creation. Francis has said before that he hopes today’s politicians will take this responsibility to heart as they address one of the most important issues of our times: “I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor!”

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME faith

Faith in Religious Institutions at New Low

Pete Ryan—Getty Images/National Geographic RF

Confidence in the Church has been steadily declining since the 1980s

As Americans become less religious, confidence in the Church as an institution is plummeting.

According to a recent Gallup poll, faith in organized religion dropped this year to just 42% in the U.S., its lowest point ever.

More Americans are now identifying as non-religious or as members of a non-Christian faith, according to the poll, which came from a sample of 1,527 individuals, including Protestants and Catholics, from all 50 states.

Approval of the church and organized religion in general has been steadily declining since the 1980s, the Gallup study said. The church is in fourth place on Gallup’s confidence in institutions list, behind the military, small businesses and the police.

According to Gallup, the biggest recent drop seems to be amongst Protestants, not necessarily Catholics. Confidence in the Protestant Church fell from 55% to 51% in the past year in a steady decline since it reached 65% approval in 2009.

With the renewed efforts to hold priests accountable in sex scandals, Pope Francis has managed to steady the Catholic Church’s reputation. Americans’ confidence in the Holy See has stayed above 50% for two years in a row now for the first time since 2003 and 2004, a big improvement over their lowest confidence rating of 39% in 2007.

TIME Religion

Jeb Bush’s Response to Pope Francis’s Climate Change Encyclical Is Hogwash

Pope Francis waves to the faithful as he arrives in St. Peter's Square for a meeting with the Roman Diocesans on June 14, 2015 in Vatican City.
Franco Origlia—Getty Images Pope Francis waves to the faithful as he arrives in St. Peter's Square for a meeting with the Roman Diocesans on June 14, 2015 in Vatican City.

Christopher Hale is executive director at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and the co-founder of Millennial.

Bush is wrong: The church must get involved in politics

Here we go again. Two weeks after Rick Santorum said Pope Francis should “leave science to scientists,” another Catholic Republican presidential candidate has pushed back on Pope Francis’s upcoming June 18 encyclical letter on climate change.

It only took former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who announced his presidential campaign Monday, one day on the campaign trail to go after Francis on this issue. “I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home,” Bush said about Francis’s encyclical. “But I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope.” A devout Catholic, Bush said religion “ought to be about making us better as people, less about things [that] end up getting into the political realm.”

This is absolute hogwash, and Bush knows it.

“As a public leader, one’s faith should guide you,” Bush said in 2009. “In the United States, many people think you need to keep your faith, put it in a security box, if you’re an elected official — put it in a safety deposit box until you finish your service as a public servant and then you can go get it back. I never felt that was appropriate.”

While governor of Florida, Bush credited his Catholic faith for guiding his decision-making on several policy issues, most notably on child welfare. “You hear people say, ‘I don’t want to impose my faith,’” Bush told a Florida Catholic newspaper shortly after leaving office. “Well, it’s not an imposition of faith. It’s who you are.”

So what’s changed since then? The most obvious answer is Pope Francis. He has called on the church to become less “obsessed” with abortion, same-sex marriage, and contraception. Perhaps this doesn’t sit well with Bush, Santorum, and other candidates who may find themselves politically at odds with other issues at the heart of the Church’s social mission, including comprehensive immigration reform, abolishing the death penalty, and ensuring workers’ rights to organize.

Bush is wrong: The church must get involved in politics. In fact, a “good Catholic,” Pope Francis has said, “meddles in politics.” We don’t do this to elect a candidate or advance a party, but because politics affects human flourishing, and we’re called by God to defend the dignity of every woman, man, and child.

Bush, Santorum, and other conservatives will allow faith to affect their politics when the church defends the dignity of the child in the womb. They must allow their faith to do the same when the church fights against the rampant consumerism, air pollution, and environmental exploitation. If they do so, they will respond to God’s ancient request to be good stewards of all that God has given us: clear air, fresh water, and fruits of the harvest.

Bush, Santorum and other GOP presidential candidates still have time before the Iowa caucuses to switch course and stand with Pope Francis and the Catholic Church in fighting global climate change. Bush’s political history in particular suggests he might be willing to do so. If he does, he has the rare chance of being a modern American political hero by risking his political future for the sake of his nation’s future.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com