Pope Francis, Economics, and Poverty - by James V. Schall, S.J.

Comments made by Cardinal Bergoglio in 2010 shed light on his understanding of capitalism, work, and the poor

In CWR

“The free-will actions of human beings, in addition to our own individual responsibility, have far-reaching consequences: they generate structures that endure over time and create a climate in which certain values can either occupy a central place in public life or be marginalized from the reigning culture. And this too falls under the moral sphere.”— Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, 2010.¹

“What happens is that the unemployed, in their hours of solitude, feel miserable because they are not ‘earning their living.’ That is why it is very important that governments of all countries, through the relevant ministries and departments, cultivate a culture of work, not of charity…. They have to cultivate sources of work because, and I never tire of repeating, this, work confers dignity.” — Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, 2010.²

 

I.

The two major criticisms concerning the perceived economic thought of the current pope are these: 1) that he does not understand how normal capitalism functions with its relation to the poor, and 2) that he habitually relies on the state for solutions, when the modern state is usually a major part of the problem. In a homily in the Chapel of Santa Marta (November 5), however, Pope Francis talked of state officials who lose their dignity by taking bribes. On November 11, the Pope spoke of the man who “puts one hand in his pocket that helps the Church, while, with the other hand, he robs the State and the poor.” No doubt, political and bureaucratic corruption in the form of bribes and favoritism is a major cause of poverty and injustices in the world today, not just for the poor. Few say so as bluntly as Pope Francis. 

The Pope has spoken of “unbridled capitalism,” which seems strange. Capitalism today is almost totally bridled by extensive state control. We do have a global flow of capital seeking a place to invest. This financial power can be misused and too often is. But it is also one of the great generators of economic growth. “Unbridled capitalism,” if it exists, is much less a problem than the state-controlled capitalism when it comes to impediments for increasing wealth and labor possibilities for the poor. Moreover, as The Economist (June 1) wrote, the world in fact has recently made enormous strides in the world-wide alleviation of poverty, due mostly to capitalism and its imitators. I have not seen any mention of this fact in any of the Pope’s discussion of remaining world poverty. Both political corruption and government controls are more harmful to the poor than so-called “unbridled capitalism.” This fact also needs to be stated. 

The Pope often speaks of a “throw-away” society, something like the “consumer” society that John Paul II used to chastise. But just what are the consequences of not throwing useless or outmoded things away or not having the free demand that causes investment and employment? To prohibit a “throw-away society” seems close to mandating a stagnate economy in which what is inefficient or useless is legally kept functioning at higher and higher costs in the name of jobs or ecology. Innovation that would change things is stifled. The sources of growth flee the jurisdictions that prevent its growth. This movement, in fact, explains much of the economic gains of many poorer nations in the world today, particularly in Asia. 

The Pope is likewise famous for having remarked that the greatest problems in today’s world are “unemployed youth and loneliness in old age.” Yet, we cannot talk of unemployed youth without talking about what really causes the jobsthey need to employ them. Insisting that the government will do the job simply will not suffice, but as we will see below, Pope Bergoglio seems to understand much of this. And it is clear that all old people, rich or poor, experience loneliness. It is not basically an economic problem, as Cicero said long ago. The Pope often says that the elderly should be taken care of by their own families. But the Pope has also pointedly warned of a control of the whole global economic system that seems to him almost diabolical. 

II.

With this background, I want to comment on several interesting and surprising remarks that Jorge Bergoglio made about economic affairs in the book of conversations that took place in Argentina while he was still Archbishop there. Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio, edited by Francisca Ambrogetti and Sergio Rubin, is a wide-ranging discussion, not limited to economics. The Pope identifies himself with the cause of the poor. Nothing is wrong with this concern, provided that one also has some concrete insight into what would help most of the poor. Otherwise, we are just ringing our hands. 

Pope Francis speaks like a man with a vow of poverty, which he is. An individual person is always free to sell his goods, give them to the poor, and follow Christ. This kind of voluntary poverty is designed as a witness not so much to poverty itself as to the fact that our happiness, be we rich or poor, does not lie in material things. Even here, those who do give up these material things are told that they shall receive a hundred-fold even in this life (Matt 16:29). 

The vow of poverty does not imply that material things are intrinsically evil. They are good and can be put to good use; otherwise no virtue would result in giving them up. They can be used wrongly, of course, but in themselves they are good. The whole purpose of civilization is to show why and how this further good use of a good creation can come about. Civilization and culture aim to discover this use and bring it into orderly existence for the good of each and all. 

The earth is to serve man as its own primary purpose. Man is given “dominion” over it, which does not mean that he is supposed to let it sit there untouched. Often a correct theology is needed to see this relation, as not all theologies see it. But this order of man to earth can only come about through human intelligence, work, freedom, and organization. God did not, in creation, give us all the solutions. He gave us brains, hands, and imagination to figure it out for ourselves, a much greater manifestation of divine wisdom. 

People with vows of poverty can use their freedom to learn and do what they can to help others in a variety of ways. But the essential issue concerns not those with vows of poverty, but the free participation of the vast majority of men, who have no such vow, in a purposeful enterprise for real human goods. By his own labor and mind, man seeks both to earn a living and contribute to the good of others. At the same time, he strives to make the earth itself a more beautiful and abundant dwelling by his presence and work on it. 

But the poverty of real want is itself an important thing to identify and to think carefully about. In the beginning, the whole world was poor, dependent solely on what nature by itself brought forth. Agriculture that made the earth more bountiful had to be discovered and put into operation. The Pope wants a “poor Church,” as he has often said. But does he want a poor world? As we will see below, I think not. One of the historic effects of Christianity, as Pope Benedict XVI often said, was to make the world more elegant, more beautiful, and more fruitful. Such a position that wants everyone to be poor in the name of ecology or asceticism would be contrary to the whole dynamism of civilization, even when we recognize vividly that wealth can be dangerous and that we have here no “lasting city.” 

The question that we rarely hear asked by religious leaders is this: “Why is not everyone poor?” Is it a bad thing that many are rich and almost all desire a good level of wealth? Do we not wish the poor to become, by comparison, relatively rich? The answer is the only real issue when it comes to the question of helping the poor. Simply giving wealth away, however, causes it to disappear and often corrupts the receiver unless we also know how to increase it and teach others to use the means that produce it. 

We know how to help the poor. But not every way will work. Modern economics and politics are mostly clashes over the proper answer to the question: “What helps the poor?” If we choose the wrong way, and many do, the poor will not be helped in spite of our good intentions. We can only help the poor if everyone, rich and poor alike, is gradually becoming richer. The “redistribution” model for alleviating the poor—take from the rich give to the poor—is little more than a slogan for making everyone poor. In the New Testament, even, those who have something to give to the poor—a cloak, some bread, a dwelling—were not poor by the standards of that time. Why not? If they had nothing to give, how could they be chastised for not giving? St. Paul said, “He who will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess 3:10). Paul recognized that laziness, freeloading, and bad will are factors in causing and relieving poverty. 

The basic approach to poverty is this: “Do not talk of poverty without asking how one becomes not poor” The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. Neither are the poor in that condition because existing property is maldistributed. On the large-scale, the poor are poor because responsible and just free market economies are not in place with institutions mostly free from state take-over but still within a regime of law and private initiative. 

We have to grant that some poor will always be with us for a variety of human reasons. Moreover, poverty is almost always a relative thing. The poor in some societies are by comparison fabulously rich by the conditions of another society. The wealthy of yesterday seem poorer by today’s standards. Moreover, the poor must not be treated as if they have no part in this discussion. They are not simply passive victims whose sole need is for someone else to take care of them. Often, they too have crimes and habits that make any effort to improve their lot almost impossible. We talk of the poor as if we want them so that we can take care of them for our sake. The goal should be rather that we are mainly interested in their taking care of themselves, with their own proper work and virtue. The poor do not exist so that good people can feel good about themselves by helping them. 

III.

As I cited in the beginning of this essay, Jorge Bergoglio understands the relation between work and a man’s dignity. When sufficient work for everyone is lacking, the Pope points to government’s responsibility, not to the economy or free enterprise to create new jobs. It is true that government has to “cultivate the sources of work” but these source are little discussed. The Latin American tradition, from the time of the Spanish, has had a rather top-down view of the economy. It is this tradition which seems to look first not to an on-going economy but to the state for employment. 

Later on, Bergoglio points out that some states, in order to keep jobs and employment, limit hours of work to provide jobs for others. To this practice, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires says something quite correct and, in the best sense, capitalist: “Fewer people working means fewer people consuming. Man intervenes even less in production, but at the same time who will buy the products?”³ These are exactly the right observations. The real problem, Bergoglio remarks, is not leisure time but “the first step is creating the sources of work.”⁴ This is correct. The question is still: “What does this first step in creating sources of work mean?” 

Bergoglio next follows with a comment on leisure. Leisure, he observes, can mean either idleness or gratification. There must be a culture of work and one of gratification. “People who work must take time to relax, to be with their families, enjoy themselves, read, listen to music, and enjoy a sport.”⁵ He sees working on the Sabbath a sign of eliminating leisure. It dehumanizes. 

One might note here that Bergoglio unfortunately never seems to have read Josef Pieper’s seminal book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture.⁶ Pieper, in the Aristotelian tradition, points out that leisure and recreation are not the same thing. Relaxation means a pause from work to return to work. But the purpose of work is not more work but the higher things. In this sense, work exists for leisure, not the other way around. Bergoglio does not make this distinction and so he tends to propose what is essentially a work society, and not a society that works in order that something more human might exist.⁷

The Marxist society that reduces everything to work, including the life of the mind, is one to be avoided. This approach does not mean that work is not important, but it does mean that work exists so that what is worked on comes into being. To work for work’s sake is like digging a hole and filling it up again just to be doing something. Work, to be human, must always have a purpose. Pope John Paul II maintained that the worker was more important than the work. This is true, but the worker cannot have what he does or how he does it to be unnecessary or meaningless. 

Bergoglio’s treatment of the famous movie Babette’s Feast is worth noting in light of his understanding, as pope, of poverty. He relates his discussion to a more general comment on pain. At times, suffering has been “overemphasized.” The Calvinist community in the film is pictured as closed in a narrow world. They see the “redemption of Christ as a negation of the things of this world.” They are gradually freed of this illusion by realizing the goodness of an excellent dinner. “They were devoted to the grey side of life. They feared love.” Obviously, the Pope is on the side of the blessings of the dinner and its appreciation of things.⁸

Bergoglio remarks, as he often does, that he too is a “sinner.”⁹ He does not have all the answers, or even all the questions.¹⁰ He understands the difference between ideology and morality. “We are redeemed only by what we accept. If we don’t accept that there are people with different opinions, even opposing opinions that you don’t share, and if you don’t respect them or pray for them, you will never redeem them in your heart. We must not let ideology triumph morality.”¹¹ The poor can be occasion for ideology: “Catholicism’s greatest concern regarding the poor in the sixties was the issue of fertile ground that could give rise to any kind of ideology.”¹² His response to this ideology was not to join it but to get in touch with the people and their own lives. “So the more that pastoral agents discover popular piety that more that ideology falls away, because they are close to the people and their problems.”¹³

 

Ought the Church not say much about these things? “Denouncing human rights abuses, situation of exploitation or exclusion, or shortages in education, or food, is not being partisan. Catholic social teaching is full of denunciations, yet it is not partisan. When we come out and say things, some accuse us of playing politics. I say to them, yes, we are playing politics in the Gospel sense of the word, but not the partisan sense.”¹⁴ The Church has a place in the public forum not just because of its transcendent orientation but because of its understanding about what man is. 

Why do people fall away from ethical standards? “I would say that there is a devaluation of the exercise of ethical principles in order to justify a lack of compliance with them.”¹⁵ Here again is where ideology comes as a presumed explanation of why it is all right to fall away from moral standards. We need to give reasons especially when we are wrong. The Argentine Archbishop put it in an amusing way: “There is almost always an element of deceit involved in selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge, and this is accepted because ‘everyone does it.’”¹⁶ If everyone does it, it still may be wrong. 

IV.

Bergoglio sees some cultural advance. “The fact is, in general, cultures are progressing in terms of the appeal of a moral conscience. It’s not what’s moral that's changing. What’s moral doesn’t change. We carry it inside us. Ethical behavior is part of our being. What happens is that we are continually defining it more clearly.”¹⁷ But this does not mean that we cannot slide back. When asked what he thought about opposition to abortion as a religious question, he answered: “Well, a pregnant woman isn’t carrying a toothbrush in her stomach, or a tumor. Science has taught us that from the moment of conception, the new being has its entire genetic code. It’s impressive. Therefore, it’s not a religious issue bit. A moral issue with a scientific basis. Because we are in the presence of a human being.”¹⁸ This reasonable/scientific approach to our opposition to abortion has been one that Hadley Arkes has been arguing for years. Bergoglio is in full agreement with it. 

At first sight, it seems that Bergoglio did not understand the importance of development to poverty. But in the case of Argentina itself, he is quite clear: 

I can say that we (Argentinians) have not exploited what we have. On God’s judgment day, we will count ourselves among those who ignored the gifts we were given and did not use them productively, not only in terms of agriculture and raising cattle but in mining as well… Throughout our history, we have not created jobs tied to our natural resources. It cannot be that most jobs in Argentina are found around large cities such as Buenos Aires or Rosaio. It just can’t be.¹⁹

Part of this problem, of course, is that modern agriculture is very productive with relatively few laborers. Jobs are tied to machines and the capacity to use them, especially to the presence of the computer. Cities are themselves generators of wealth and jobs. 

The Archbishop reflects on Argentina: “God gave us everything; there is not enough food or enough jobs. It is a great injustice and flagrant lack of responsibility to distributing our resources.”²⁰ The fact is that resources are not the real cause of wealth or the means for caring for others. The real source of wealth is the mind—learning how to use the mind and what it can produce. Not everyone wants to learn this or learn it in a productive context. This is why, as E. F. Schmacher used to say, the real problem is not simply economic, but moral and political. Bergoglio senses some of this: “I would say that, deep down, it is a problem of sin. For four years Argentina has been living in a sinful existence because it has not taken responsibility for those who have no food or work. It is everyone’s responsibility….”²¹ But this responsibility needs to be directed to what works. What is it after all that generates work?

Bergoglio seems quite aware of the complexity of this issue. He does understand that work needs consumption, demand, and inventiveness. “The creative capacity to generate work, and coming out ahead, seems to occur, especially in the worst of cities, when there is nothing left to do.”²² Cities that were once poor are now rich. Asia is becoming full of them. We need visions that work, that are related to reality. Bergoglio graphically put it this way: “Let us not forget that utopias lead to growth. Of course, the danger is not just in falling into the trap of reflecting on the past, of patriotic duty, in being satisfied with what one has received and not looking any further; but also in the non-historical utopia, the one without tradition, the pure fantasy.”²³ Traditional utopias can be models of stagnation or of fantasy. We need to imagine, to plan what can be done, and then do it. 

One of the remarkable but too little faced issues today is that of the fall in the birth rate in many countries and what this fall does to the economy and way of life. Bergoglio shows himself quite up-to-date on this issue. 

Of course I’m concerned (about the falling birthrate). It’s a form of social suicide. By the year 2022, Italy will not have enough revenue in its retirement coffers—that is, the country will not have the funds to pay its pensioners. At the end of 2002, France celebrated the figure of two children per woman. But Italy and Spain have less than one per woman. That means physical and social realities will be replaced; it implies that other cultures and perhaps another civilization will emerge. This will not take the slow form as the barbarian invasions of the year 400 or so, bur the territory left by some will be occupied by others. As a result of the migrations, Europe may undergo changes in its culture. Although, actually, that’s not a new phenomenon. Let’s not forget the extensive Christian communities that inhabited northern Africa for several centuries no longer exist there.²⁴

Few have put this issue better. Unfortunately, Bergoglio did not state exactly what took over in Africa so that Christian communities no longer much exist there.

The Argentine Archbishop was cautious about what goes on internationally. “But globalization is an ambiguous reality.”²⁵ Yet, he made a surprisingly strong statement about where we ought to be going: “That is what gives rise to a common ethic and openness toward a destiny of abundance that defines man as a spiritual being.”²⁶ The phrase “an abundance that defines man as a spiritual being” is memorable. We are not defined by our tight, negative existence, but by bringing forth that abundance that has been there for men to discover since they first appeared on this planet. 

Finally, Bergoglio gives us his understanding of what, in his mind, a nation is. He does not refer, say, to Maritain’s famous discussion of nation, state, society, and community in his Man in the State. Rather he gives a common sense reflection. He does not indicate that a nation comes from common blood lines, which is what the word “nation” means, while “state” is the modern post-Machiavellian word, in contrast to Aristotle’s polity. Here is Bergoglio’s analysis: 

What is it that makes a bunch of people a nation? First of all, there is a natural law and then a heritage. Second, there is a psychological factor: man becomes man (each individual or the species as it evolved) through communication, interaction, love for this fellow being. Through words and trough love. And third, these biological and psychological evolutionary factors become real and really come into play, in our free will behavior, in the desire to bond with others in a certain way, to build our lives with our neighbors in a range of shared practices and preferences.²⁷

One cannot help but seeing here his love of Argentina.

But now the Argentine Archbishop remains a man, who, like John Paul II and Benedict, does not forget his homeland. Yet he finds himself a world figure. In the end, the papal economics of this Pope, I think, show many signs of a practical wisdom that will serve us in good stead. Not everything is clear, as he himself often reminds us. Most economists themselves, in fact, admit that that “the dismal science” really has a bad record about “predicting” what will happen. The Pope, as an economist, is in good company. But that is the point. In pointing to jobs, innovation, and the poor, he is reminding us of what it is all for, what it is about. He wants us to know that it is not just about economics, even for the poor. 

ENDNOTES:

1 Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words: Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio, edited by Francisca Ambrogetti and Sergio Rubin (New York: Putnam, [2010] 2013), 238.

2 Ibid, 18.

3 Ibid, 18.

4 Ibid. 19.

5 Ibid, 19-20.

6 Josef Pieper, Leisure: The Basis of Culture, Foreword by James V. Schall (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, [1946] 2010).

7 See Joseph Hebert, “Be Still and See: Leisure, Labor, and Human Dignity in Josef Pieper and Blessed John Paul II,” Logos 16 (Spring 2013), 144-59.

8 Bergoglio, ibid, 26.

9 Ibid, 46.

10 Ibid, 48.

11 Ibid, 88-89.

12 Ibid, 93.

13 Ibid, 94.

14 Ibid, 94-95.

15 Ibid, 100.

16 Ibid, 100-101.

17 Ibid, 101.

18 Ibid, 109-10.

19 Ibid, 127.

20 Ibid, 128.

21 Ibid, 129

22 Ibid, 133.

23 Ibid, 142.

24 Ibid, 225-26.

25 Ibid, 211.

26 Ibid, 240-41.

27 Ibid. 241.

Contra el matrimonio homosexual el general Bergoglio mandó al asalto a las monjas - por Sandro Magister

 In Chiesaespresso

En lugar de desafiar a los poderosos de frente, el entonces arzobispo de Buenos Aires escribió una carta incandescente a unas monjas de clausura. Era su modo de "hacer política". La narración de una testigo directa de esa batalla 

ROMA, 15 de noviembre de 2013 – El Papa Francisco lo ha dicho claro en la entrevista programática a "La Civiltà Cattolica". Las batallas públicas sobre cuestiones como el aborto o el matrimonio homosexual no son para él prioritarias.

Ello no es óbice para que el próximo sínodo esté dedicado precisamente al tema de la familia. Por tanto, a cuestiones que hoy están también entre las más combatidas en el terreno político.

Generalmente, se considera que el Papa Jorge Mario Bergoglio debe pedir a los obispos que actúen en la escena pública en las modalidades adecuadas para cada país.

Pero también entre los obispos hay incertidumbre. En Italia, en Estados Unidos, en España, es decir, en los países donde en los años pasados el compromiso público de los episcopados sobre las cuestiones de la vida y de la familia ha sido más batallero, hay quien presiona para una mayor distancia del terreno político, siguiendo el ejemplo – se dice – del Papa.

Pues bien, ¿qué ejemplo dio Bergoglio cuando, como arzobispo de Buenos Aires, tuvo que enfrentarse a la aprobación de una ley que permite a personas del mismo sexo contraer matrimonio y adoptar niños?

Corría el año 2010 cuando en Argentina se aprobó dicha ley. El cardenal Bergoglio tomó posiciones en contra de ella de una manera que él había estudiado muy bien. No con declaraciones públicas que desafiaran frontalmente a los poderes políticos, sino con dos cartas internas a la Iglesia: la primera, a las monjas de cuatro monasterios carmelitas de Buenos Aires y la segunda a un dirigente del laicado católico argentino.

El doble movimiento del cardenal Bergoglio tuvo naturalmente un notable impacto también en el terreno político. Pero la explicación que se dio fue que el cardenal, con las dos cartas, no tenía la intención de "hacer política" sino simplemente "recordar la enseñanza de la Iglesia a todos aquellos que se proclaman católicos, pidiéndoles que actúen en consecuencia".

La persona que dio en el parlamento argentino esta justificación de la actuación del cardenal Bergoglio fue una senadora católica muy vinculada a éste, Liliana Negre, miembro del partido peronista y primera presidenta mundial de los "Parlamentarios para la vida y la familia".

Liliana Negre ha contado detalladamente cómo se llegó en Argentina a la aprobación de esa ley en un libro que ha salido en los Estados Unidos sobre Papa Francisco, con el testimonio de veinte personas que lo conocieron muy de cerca, jesuitas y no.

El entonces arzobispo de Buenos Aires no estaba, naturalmente, en el parlamento, cuando se aprobó la ley sobre el matrimonio homosexual. Sin embargo, los promotores de esa ley veían en él a su enemigo número uno, que había que derrotar a cualquier costa, incluso boicoteando cualquier negociado que abriera el camino a soluciones aceptables para la Iglesia.

He aquí la narración de esos días incandescentes, de mano de una testigo directa.

__________



BERGOGLIO, UN MÁRTIR EN VIDA Y UN HÉROE

de Liliana Negre


El Cardenal Bergoglio siempre fue una persona que tuvo mucho coraje y mucha valentía para plantarse frente a los poderosos y decir lo que pensaba: la voz de los que no tenían voz era el Cardenal Bergoglio. Sobre todo en Buenos Aires que era el lugar de mayor concentración del poder, concentración económica, concentración política… como decimos nosotros “Dios está en todas partes, pero atiende en Buenos Aires”. […]

Yo lo conozco a él cuando soy senadora, tengo tres o cuatro entrevistas con él, pero profundizo más la relación a través de Parlamentarios por la Vida y la Familia. Él participó en ese congreso y se acercó a los parlamentarios pro-vida de Argentina para saludarnos, alentarnos a que siguiéramos trabajando, que tuviéramos coraje. Y después vino el tema del matrimonio de las personas del mismo sexo que en la Cámara de Diputados se trató muy rápido; y cuando llega al Senado de la Nación yo era la Presidenta de la Comisión. […]

En ese entonces la presidenta era Cristina Fernández y su esposo, el fallecido ex - presidente Néstor Kirchner, era diputado nacional. […] En el tema del matrimonio de las personas del mismo sexo, los Kirchner habían señalado a Bergoglio como el enemigo, porque lógicamente él planteaba lo que la Iglesia plantea a ese respecto. Incluso hubo una manifestación pública la tarde anterior a la aprobación de la ley, frente al Congreso. Y ese día el Cardenal envió una carta al Presidente del Consejo de Laicos de la Arquidiócesis de Buenos Aires. La carta se lee con su permiso y así el Cardenal permite que se conozca su postura públicamente y alienta a los laicos a seguir trabajando y luchando por nuestros valores.

Los Kirchner decían que el Cardenal era quien coordinaba todo el movimiento pro-familia a lo largo y ancho de la Argentina. El Cardenal también envió una carta a las carmelitas descalzas de Buenos Aires. Y, no sé por qué, el texto empieza a circular en las redes sociales: contenía no sólo una dura crítica a la catástrofe humana que supondría la legalización del “matrimonio” homosexual,  sino que pedían que rezaran para iluminar a los senadores. El día 14 de julio a las 10 de la mañana se inició el debate, que fue muy fuerte, y terminó sin interrupciones el 15 de julio cuando perdimos la votación.

Nosotros nos habíamos sentado al inicio del debate con una ventaja de nueve votos, y finalmente perdimos por tres. Así se puede dar cuenta de lo terrible que fue eso. El ex-presidente Kirchner como diputado nacional honorario nunca iba a la Cámara. Sólo fue dos veces: cuando juramentó como diputado… y cuando fue a votar a favor del “matrimonio” de las personas del mismo sexo.

Recuerdo que un senador del oficialismo interrumpió la sesión para hace una fuerte crítica al Cardenal Bergoglio y habló de la carta que había enviado a las carmelitas de Buenos Aires, en la que el Cardenal decía textualmente: “No se trata de una simple lucha política; sino de la pretensión destructiva al plan de Dios.  No se trata de un mero proyecto legislativo –éste es sólo el instrumento– sino de una ‘movida’ del padre de la mentira que pretende confundir y engañar a los hijos de Dios”.

La misiva decía además: “A los senadores: clamen al Señor para que envíe su Espíritu a los Senadores que han de dar su voto. Que no lo hagan movidos por el error o por situaciones de coyuntura sino según lo que la ley natural y la ley de Dios les señala.  Esta guerra no es vuestra sino de Dios.  Que ellos nos socorran, defiendan y acompañen en esta guerra de Dios”.

El senador oficialista que leyó esta carta fue Marcelo Fuentes, quien usó epítetos durísimos contra el Cardenal Bergoglio. Era un momento de mucha tensión porque la sesión tuvo muchos agravios.

Yo era la Presidenta de la Comisión y como tal llevaba la voz del no al “matrimonio” homosexual. Habíamos logrado consensuar un proyecto que era apoyado por quienes votaron no al matrimonio de las personas del mismo sexo; y que recibía además el apoyo para un proyecto de unión civil que estaba firmado por ocho de 15 senadores. Eso era lo que buscábamos para tener el 80 por ciento de la adhesión de los miembros de la Comisión. En este grupo estaban senadores del kirchnerismo, de partidos provinciales, de la unión cívica radical y del peronismo federal al que yo pertenezco. La idea era reconocer algunos derechos que los convivientes del mismo sexo pedían, como por ejemplo que se modificara la ley de salud, que los dejaran entrar a la terapia de sus parejas, o tener derecho de recibir pensión.

Esa noche, mientras estaba la gran manifestación en las afueras del Senado y se leía la otra carta del Cardenal, la dirigida a los laicos, el Presidente del Senado, violando todo el reglamento y la Constitución argentina, me notifica a mí como Presidenta de la Comisión que ha decidido anular  el proyecto de ley que tenía el apoyo del 80 por ciento del Senado, y que dejaría para el día siguiente solamente el sí o el no por el “matrimonio” homosexual.

La tensión que había se hizo más fuerte. A mí el presidente del grupo oficialista me dijo que era una fascista, que quería discriminar a las personas homosexuales como hacía Hitler con los judíos, que solo me faltaba ponerme la banda con la esvástica. La situación me arrancó lágrimas, porque yo había sido especialmente respetuosa; había cuidado mucho mis palabras. En medio del fragor de la madrugada me tocó responder a todas estas cuestiones. Pero especialmente quise referirme a las barbaridades que habían dicho del Cardenal, a quien nadie había defendido.

Puedo leer lo que dije tras señalar que iba a aclarar al senador Fuentes: “La Iglesia Católica responde al magisterio de la Iglesia; significa que el magisterio tiene un documento y ese documento ha expedido la Iglesia Católica en el año 2003. El documento lleva por título 'Consideraciones sobre los proyectos de reconocimiento legal de las uniones de personas homosexuales'. Esta es la posición de la Iglesia Católica. Entonces lo que ha hecho el Cardenal Bergoglio cuando confeccionó esa carta que dirigió a las Carmelitas, que son monjas de clausura, fue opinar de conformidad a las normas internas de la Iglesia Católica. Debemos saber diferenciar las cosas y defender a los ministros de culto. Ayer el Cardenal Bergoglio mandó una carta a esa marcha de laicos dirigida al Dr. Carbajales, su presidente. Esa es una carta y otra es la que mandó a las Carmelitas”.

Quería dejar en claro que ni el Cardenal Bergoglio ni otros muy valientes obispos argentinos estaba “interviniendo en política”, como criticaba el oficialismo, sino que estaba recordando lo que enseña la Iglesia a todos los que se proclaman católicos, y estaba pidiendo a esos católicos que actuaran en consecuencia. […]

Después que votaron a favor del matrimonio homosexual, los oficialistas dijeron: “Ya redujimos a Bergoglio”. Ellos habían encarado esta lucha por esta ley como si hubiera sido entre ellos y Bergoglio. […] El Cardenal Bergoglio fue vituperado, insultado, mancillado. Las cosas que yo escuché esas 24 horas de sesión sobre el Cardenal era para no creer. Y de pronto el Señor lo pone en ese lugar de Sucesor de Pedro en la Tierra. Por eso creo y por eso dije que es un mártir en vida y es un héroe.

Lo que el jesuita Bergoglio hizo realmente durante la dictadura Argentina de Videla

In RL 

"La lista de Bergoglio. Los salvados por el Papa Francisco. Las historias nunca contadas" con prólogo de Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, premio Nobel de la Paz, y editado por la editorial Emi (www.emi.it), es el título de una investigación de Nello Scavo, periodista del diario italiano “Avvenire”, sobre las vicisitudes de varias personas – disidentes, sindicalistas, sacerdotes, estudiantes, intelectuales, creyentes y no creyentes– a quienes el entonces padre Jorge Mario Bergoglio consiguió poner a salvo de la persecución de la junta militar.

El provincial de los jesuitas había construido una red clandestina para salvaguardar a los perseguidos (a los que ofrecía un prontuario de consejos sobre cómo despistar a la policía y la censura) y organizar las fugas al exterior.

El poder de las Fuerzas Armadas en Argentina culminó con el golpe del 24 de marzo de 1976. Los militares hicieron desaparecer al menos a treinta mil personas, quince mil fueron fusilados por la calle, se apropiaron de más de quinientos bebés de mujeres condenadas a muerte. Más de dos millones fueron exiliados.

Aparte de los relatos en primera persona de los perseguidos protegidos por el futuro Papa, el libro (que se publicará en Italia el 1 de octubre) contiene relatos y documentos inéditos, entre ellos, la transcripción del interrogatorio del entonces cardenal Bergoglio, realizado en 2010 en calidad de persona informada de los hechos, ante los magistrados que indagaban sobre la violación de los derechos humanos durante la dictadura. Con fuerza emerge la integridad moral, la coherencia, el valor, a menudo a riesgo de la propia vida, del jesuita que un día sería el papa Francisco.

Jesuita, poco más de ochenta años, Juan Manuel Scannone es el máximo representante de la que desde los años 80 en adelante sería definida como “teología del pueblo”. Hoy Scannone es director del Instituto de estudios filosóficos en la Universidad de Teología y Filosofía San Miguel, la misma de la que fue rector Bergoglio entre 1980 y 1986. “Ahora que mi amigo Jorge es Papa Francisco, puedo contar que sí, él me cubrió las espaldas, me salvó. Y lo hizo en varias circunstancias”.

La dictadura percibía la teología del pueblo como una amenaza, a pesar de su diversidad sustancial de los llamados teólogos marxistas. Sin distinciones, se persiguió y torturó a religiosos, fieles laicos, catequistas, monjas comprometidas en las “villas miseria”.

“Los militares eran incapaces de ser sutiles – explica Scannone –. Para ellos, hablar de ‘liberación’ o de ‘opción preferencial por los pobres’ se traducía en una sola palabra: comunismo”. El régimen vigilaba a él y a sus colegas y hermanos.

“La policía se movía alrededor nuestro, no precisamente porque le importara la seguridad del colegio. Una vez llegaron de noche. Superaron la verja y rodearon el edificio con las camionetas. Fue una verdadera irrupción. Recuerdo aún el estruendo de sus pasos en los pasillos. Estaba oscuro y no conseguí ver cuántos eran. Tenía el corazón en la garganta. Me sentí en el punto de mira. Han venido a cogerme, pensé”.

-¿Por qué precisamente a usted?
- Se me consideraba un representante de la teología de la liberación, corriente que el régimen percibía como humo en los ojos. Bergoglio me dio a entender de varias formas que corría peligros. En aquella época, aún encontrándonos en posiciones teológicas diferentes, aunque no creo que tan distantes, él nunca quiso que fuese silenciado. Ni siquiera cuando algunos obispos intervinieron señalándome como que mis posturas eran consideradas incómodas, por no decir impropias.

- ¿Cómo reaccionó Bergoglio al registro?
- Nos alentó, tranquilizó a todos e intimó a los militares a volver por donde habían venido, Había entre nosotros algunos jóvenes que se habían presentado donde el provincial como estudiantes en “retiro espiritual”. En realidad han hecho falta años para que hayamos podido conocer toda la verdad sobre las acciones de salvamento del padre Jorge.

- ¿Cómo le salvaguardó el futuro papa de la junta militar?
- No eran años fáciles. El padre Jorge se cuidó de nosotros como era, por otro lado, su deber. Hoy las cosas pueden ser observadas y juzgadas con otros ojos, pero entonces Bergoglio hizo lo que en su posición debía hacer. Se relacionaba frecuentemente con el padre general, que estaba al corriente de lo que sucedía, y nos ofrecía consejos sobre cómo evitar el apremiante control del régimen, sin pero jamás deber renunciar a nuestras ideas.

- ¿Hasta el punto de proporcionar una serie de sugerencias para no acabar “absorbido” en un campo de concentración?
- El primero de los consejos fue el de no enviar nunca mis artículos y ensayos a través de la oficina postal de San Miguel y aún menos desde Buenos Aires. Él sospechaba que toda la correspondencia estaba controlada, así como las conversaciones telefónicas. Además, cuando me dirigía a los barrios donde llevaba a cabo mi actividad pastoral, el superior provincial me aconsejó que no fuera nunca solo, y no sólo por razones de seguridad. Así, si la policía, el ejército, la marina o la aeronáutica vinieran a prenderme, habría habido testigos. Esta era una de las formas que Bergoglio nos sugería para evitar desaparecer de la circulación, engullidos en el más completo silencio.

- ¿El padre provincial no dijo nunca a los profesores y a los estudiantes del colegio cuál era la verdadera condición de los jóvenes perseguidos acogidos en San Miguel?
- Bergoglio decía que los chicos que venían aquí estaban en fase de discernimiento vocacional, o que necesitaban ayuda en los estudios. Por ello creíamos que se trataba de ayuda espiritual. Nunca sospechamos que estuviera llevando operaciones “clandestinas”. El padre Jorge no sólo mantuvo el secreto entonces, sino que nunca quiso vanagloriarse de esa particularísima misión suya. Él trabajó no sólo para proteger, tutelar y salvar a padres jesuitas y seminaristas, sino también para esconder a jóvenes estudiantes que estaban en el punto de mira de la dictadura, que eran llevados a nuestro colegio, con todas las cautelas necesarias, con el fin de ponerles a salvo de los raptos de la policía.

- Eran años de miedo...
- El padre Bergoglio no podía correr riesgos. Si uno de los jesuitas del colegio hubiese sido secuestrado, ¿quién aseguraba que el desafortunado no fuese sometido a torturas para revelar esta actividad secretísima? Si los sicarios de Videla hubieran descubierto que los jesuitas de Buenos Aires, bajo la dirección de su superior, operaban clandestinamente en actividades contrarias al “Proceso de reorganización nacional”, ciertamente habría habido consecuencias que sólo hoy podemos imaginar.

- Finalmente, el caso de Yorio y Jalics, los dos jesuitas raptados, torturados y liberados después de casi seis meses...
- El padre Jalics ha desmentido implicación alguna de Bergoglio. Personalmente yo estaba seguro desde hacía años. Pues Bergoglio vivía en nuestra casa de San Miguel precisamente cuando hicieron desaparecer a los dos padres, él me contaba lo que hacía y las informaciones que recogía para descubrir quién podía haberles secuestrado y dónde estaban prisioneros. Puedo dar testimonio de la preocupación y del compromiso del padre provincial para devolver la libertad a ambos.

- ¿Bergoglio consiguió informaciones precisas?
- Sí, y había puesto contra las cuerdas a los generales. Al final los dos padres fueron liberados, pero de forma que no pudieran dar indicaciones precisas sobre quién les había retenido y torturado. Durante todo el periodo de detención, ambos permanecieron siempre encapuchados, y antes de ser liberados fueron narcotizados. Hay que reconocer también que con la ayuda del padre provincial, ambos consiguieron encontrar refugio en el extranjero, para no volver a una nueva y más dramática “desaparición”.

Pope Francis: parents must teach their children reverence for life in the womb - by Hilary White

ROME, August 12, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a message for Brazil’s National family Week, Pope Francis said it is the task of parents to pass on reverence for human life at all stages to their children.

“In a particular way, faced with the culture of waste, that relativizes the value of human life,” the pope said, “parents are called to pass on to their children the understanding that this must always be defended, already in the mother’s womb, recognizing in it a gift from God and an assurance of mankind’s future, but also in the care shown to the elderly, particularly to grandparents, who are the living memory of a people and the transmitters of life's wisdom.”

Last week the pope also urged the Knights of Columbus to renew their dedication to the cause of the defence of the family and of life at all its stages.  In a letter, the pope called on the knights to emulate St. Joseph, the protector of the Holy Family, and “to bear witness to the authentic nature of marriage and the family, the sanctity and inviolable dignity of human life, and the beauty and truth of human sexuality.” 

“In this time of rapid social and cultural changes, the protection of God’s gifts cannot fail to include the affirmation and defense of the great patrimony of moral truths taught by the Gospel and confirmed by right reason, which serve as the bedrock of a just and well-ordered society,” the letter continued. 

Signed by Secretary of State Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone on the pope’s behalf, the letter was addressed to the 131st Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus that was held in San Antonio, Texas August 6-8^th.

Shortly after the recent papal visit to Brazil for World Youth Day, the government passed legislation loosening abortion restrictions. The new law requires health care centers to provide the abortifacient “morning-after pill” to rape victims up to 72 hours after the crime. 

Twenty pro-life organizations in Latin America issued a joint statement saying, “We have studied the measure and we can see in it the same strategy that is being used in all of our countries to promote widespread use of an abortifacient drug without a prescription.”  

Asked by a Brazilian journalist during the flight back to Rome why, given the urgency of the situation, he had not mentioned abortion during the week of World Youth Day, Pope Francis responded, “The Church has already expressed herself perfectly on this. It wasn’t necessary to go back to this, nor did I speak about fraud or lies or other things, on which the Church has a clear doctrine.  

The pope added, “It wasn’t necessary to talk about that, but about positive things that open the way to youngsters, isn’t that so? Moreover, young people know perfectly well what the position of the Church is.” 

As a cardinal the pope had strongly condemned abortion, even in cases of rape.

In a 2007 speech given to a gathering of priests and laity on October 2nd, then-Cardinal Bergoglio issued a defense of life even in cases of rape saying: "we aren’t in agreement with the death penalty," but "in Argentina we have the death penalty.  A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death."

In 2005, he urged Catholics to oppose abortion even if they “deliver you to the courts” or “have you killed.”

Pope Francis and the Liturgy - by Alejandro Bermudez

In NCR

No genius is needed to figure out that Pope Francis is not a liturgist the way Pope Benedict was.

But the fear that Francis’ papacy may mark the “end of the reform of the reform” of the liturgical changes that were introduced after the Second Vatican Council is, frankly, unfounded.

Let me present the evidence.

Although his liturgical gestures as pope have not amounted to much so far, his ministry in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires convincingly shows his mindset on the liturgy.

In Buenos Aires, then-Cardinal Bergoglio did not express significant interest in the extraordinary form of the rite. However, he put up no resistance to it either. Following Summorum Pontificum, he made the traditional Mass readily available. In fact, Buenos Aires is probably the Latin-American city with the largest number of Masses celebrated in the extraordinary form.

His lack of major interest was not hostility or indifference. Instead, he was concentrating on a far more daunting task: making sure that all of the faithful in his archdiocese had access to a decent Mass.

Let me explain. In Latin America, beside the beautifully and carefully celebrated Masses associated with the major popular devotions, liturgical abuses are still alive and constitute a massive problem in the region.

It is not a situation of omitting or changing the rubrics here and there. The liturgical problems are much more serious. They consist of events like priests “concelebrating” the Mass with the youth at the rhythm of tropical songs in Colombia; “consecrating” cakes with Guayaba marmalade in Venezuela; a “reggae” Mass in Panama; or a priest celebrating with vestments portraying Batman and Robin while squirting holy water with a green-and-red water pistol in Mexico.

This is no exaggeration. Such abuses are happening now.
Cardinal Bergoglio’s efforts for reform in Buenos Aires were not exclusively aimed at the liturgy. He sought to change priestly and sacramental life in general.

One of the most important and successful transformations in the archdiocese, with a significant impact on liturgy, was the cardinal’s approach to the “villero” priests.

“Villa miseria” (miserable town) is the name Argentineans give to shanty towns in major cities. The villero priests were those who dedicated their pastoral ministry to work in these impoverished, usually very violent urban environments.

Although full of pastoral zeal, most of them were identified with Latin America’s theology of liberation, which incorporated Marxist ideas into Christianity as an indispensable means of understanding and dealing with social injustice. And, in general, they had a rebellious attitude towards authority, liturgical rubrics included.

In an interview for a book I recently finished about Pope Francis and his fellow Argentinian Jesuits, Jesuit Father Ignacio Perez del Viso, who taught Jorge Bergoglio as a seminarian, explained that, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, he completely changed the dynamics of the priests and the shanty towns they served.

Father Ignacio explained, “In the ’70s, most bishops would be in constant tension with the villero priests, and, every now and then, one of them would be suddenly transferred or removed altogether.”

“By the ’90s, bishops would tolerate them … but Bergoglio, from the moment he became auxiliary [bishop] in Buenos Aires, changed all that,” he said.

The difference was that Cardinal Bergoglio embraced the priests and their ministry. He would visit them in the shanty towns, send them to rest if they were tired and replace them himself at their parish for a few days. He would personally take care of them if they were in bed sick — essentially, he looked after their particular needs.

The only time he removed a villero priest from a shanty town was to protect him from a local drug lord who sent death threats.

And with the same fatherly solicitude that he used to care for his priests, the archbishop requested that they return to wearing clerics; refrain from using “batata” (an Argentinean sweet potato) instead of unleavened bread to celebrate Mass; and use songs from Catholic songbooks rather than political or secular songs.

Most often, he used persuasion with his pastors to transform the liturgical abuses in Buenos Aires, but also, in the words of a fellow Jesuit, “he never flinched when tough measures were required.”

With the process of secularization and stiffer selection criteria applied to priestly vocations, the number of seminarians dropped during Cardinal Bergoglio’s years as archbishop. But friends and foes agree that the quality of the celebration and preaching dramatically improved in the archdiocese.

I can personally attest that a Catholic’s chances to attend a well celebrated Novus Ordo Mass, with an edifying homily, anywhere in the city on any given day, are very, very high. As someone who travels Latin America and the U.S. on a regular basis, I can attest that very few other major urban areas, if any, can provide a similar rate.

Rich, traditional liturgical gestures at Mass are highly edifying. I have the blessing of living in an archdiocese led by an archbishop who is an expert in the theology of the  liturgy, and I attend a parish with similar treasures.

But the number of Catholics who live under the liturgical tyranny of well-meaning priests who believe that the Mass is theirs and not the Lord’s is way too high in the U.S., in Latin America and around the world.

Returning to the faithful the right to attend a Mass that more fully transmits the experience of actually being the summit of Christian life is still a pending revolution, in many regions.

Pope Francis’ vision of the liturgy as a crucial part of personal conversion, as well as his pastoral experience in Buenos Aires, should be a source for hope rather than suspicion.

This task is Herculean, but let’s just give him time.

Alejandro Bermudez is the translator of On Heaven and Earth,

a dialogue between Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio and Rabbi Abraham Skorka (Image Books, 2013).