When the Pope was asked to comment on the status of gays in the Catholic Church, his response was simply “who am I to judge.” Remarkable!

At this writing Pope Francis’ plane is soaring over the Atlantic as he returns to the Vatican after an historic trip to Cuba and the United States. For the past six days, Americans have witnessed something unprecedented. You might think I am referring to the full dress “head of state” honors shown the Pontiff at the White House. Or perhaps you are amazed—maybe even stunned—by the sight of a Catholic Pope addressing Congress. These events plus the hordes of admirers that lined his motorcades and attended the various ceremonials at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, 9/11 ground zero, and Philadelphia’s Independence Square are all unprecedented. But what I find especially significant is the message he exudes in his persona and its timeliness.

When the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics says, “Who am I to judge,” he is not necessarily agreeing with your premise. He is simply not judging it. Would the so-called Caliphate of ISIL be capable of disagreeing without judgment? Would the Ayatollah? More than a few of us would have problems not judging those with whom we strongly disagree. This type of intolerance, however, is inconsistent with a democracy—though we see it regularly displayed in Congress and in primary debates. The Pontiff obviously stands for orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. And yet he can withhold judgment and respect the conscience of another whose lifestyle he might not condone. What he affirms is not the lifestyle, but the person. He is validating human beings over orthodoxy. Intolerance by its nature precludes compassion. Pope Francis, then, recognizes what is more important in both human relationships and in governance. His pastoral mission–his compassion–is for the world, not just for Catholics, because he understands what has roiled the Middle East and Central Africa, washed up refugees on the shores of Europe, terrorized the West, and even wrought uncompromising polarization in our Congress. The face of orthodoxy—religious or political—has once again raised its gargantuan head and threatens to blot out the visage of our common humanity.

There is still a fundamental difference between America and the Vatican. It is important to understand that the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are not products of any specific religious institution. Although many of our founding fathers were religious, they created an America where all religions might be practiced, but only within the limits of the law. In other words, America is basically a secular state governed by the rule of law. Its founding principles were sourced from natural law and the thinkers of the Enlightenment. It should be noted that the first pilgrims to come to our shores were escaping religious prosecution from the state. The New World effectively broke with the European tradition of conflicting religious ideologies that spurred so much violence including the Papacy’s persecution of the French Huguenots and the Inquisition. The course America has set for itself not only favors the coexistence of diverse religious practice, but also the development of a collective conscience. Consider how our country has changed in regards to slavery, women’s rights, racial injustice, and gender discrimination. No church dictated these changes, although some of them—notably, not all—were supported by various religious institutions. The American Revolution is, as John Adams so eloquently stated, an experiment. I see that “experiment” as an ongoing self-examination of our collective conscience.

Currently, Americans seem to be crystallizing their assessment on the effects of income inequality, mass incarceration and unequal law enforcement. Perhaps Americans will eventually reach some consensus on the Pope’s concerns about abortion and capital punishment. He has quietly supported the right to life position of a vocal minority in America, but noticeably without encouraging the crazies who bomb clinics and threaten bodily harm or even death to abortion practitioners. His position on capital punishment on the other hand already has a large constituency, reflecting a growing consensus among Americans. I believe there are only six southern states that have executed convicts so far this year. Nationwide there have been only 22 executions performed to date as compared with the 98 executions performed in 1998. But I think it would be wrong to use the Pope’s moral guidance as a partisan political justification for the so-called conservative or liberal positions on these matters. We Americans have to find common ground amongst ourselves first before reaching a consensus that mirrors our collective conscience. We develop that consensus over time after all conflicting considerations have been weighed. What we have learned from this Pontiff is that consensus cannot be reached without mutual respect and compassion. His message is similar to Jesus’ when confronted with the stoning of an adulteress. Without condoning adultery, he said, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” He might have said, “Who am I to judge?”