Jamie Manson |
the announcement that one “Karolum Cardinalem Wojtyla” had been chosen pope elicited the question, In 2013, despite social media, the Catholic Church’s choice of a
new pope still took the world by surprise. The speculations as to who he
would be, after Benedict XVI resigned, sorted the papabiles into
categories. The first name floated in international media was Ghana’s Peter
Turkson, described as “close” to Benedict XVI (Joseph Aloisius
Ratzinger). How that description was arrived at was not explained beyond
the fact that Turkson was a curial cardinal and a polyglot who could
speak six languages. Curial cardinal and papal nuncio Malcolm Ranjith of
Sri Lanka, fluent in 10 languages but one of the lesser known
papabiles, was “Ratzingerian.” The categorization did not stop after Jorge Bergoglio’s election
to the papacy. His “tiff” with Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de
Kirchner was par for the course. But to call him her “political
archenemy” was not. Is there another way for a Catholic priest to
comport himself vis-à-vis the issues of gay marriage and free artificial
contraception? One week into the new papacy, Kirchner was neither
friend nor foe, but she was privileged with the first papal audience and
a private lunch.
“Who he?”Also as quick was the labeling of Bergoglio, when he was still the Jesuit provincial superior in Argentina and, later, Buenos Aires archbishop, as an apostle of “antiliberation theology.”
Indeed he
rejected liberation theology. But the basis of the label was the
kidnapping and detention of Jesuit priests Orlando Yorio and Franz
Jalics by the Jorge Videla regime in 1976. Working for a poor
neighborhood, both were advised by Bergoglio to move out. The two
disobeyed and were eventually expelled from the Society of Jesus. The
quick conclusion: Bergoglio was “involved” in their kidnapping. The true story is out now that he is pope. A primary source
recalls how Bergoglio worked for the two priests’ freedom. Knowing that
the Videla family priest was to say Mass one day for the dictator and
his family, Bergoglio advised the priest to decline. He will say the Mass in his
stead—the only way Bergoglio could see Videla, then use the occasion to
ask for the release of the priests. Which he did.
Lost in the interminable guesswork following the conclave was the
statement of Jalics, now a Jesuit returnee: “As I made perfectly clear
in my prior statement, we were arrested because of a female catechist
who had at first collaborated with us and then later joined the
guerrillas. I hope God will bless Pope Francis abundantly in his
duties,” recalling how they celebrated Mass together after his Jesuit
reinstatement.
But th rather tart description of Bergoglio’s relationship with
the Jesuits persists.
The lesbian activist and writer Jamie Manson writes glowingly that she has been “touched by Francis’ clear love of the poor,” but that she is “troubled by his alleged failure to stand up (against) Argentine dictators and his harmful words about LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] families. I am worried by reports that he was unpopular among his brother Jesuits because of his unfavorable views of liberation theology.”
Worried by events that took place almost 40
years ago? That is unfair as well to the present Society of Jesus. Descriptions, labels based on scant knowledge inhibit our proper
understanding of the new pope and of his directions that the Catholic
faithful want to see. Three very recent events, which should tell us of
Pope Francis’ thrusts, have been underreported.
Link (here) to The Inquirer
1 comment:
As I mentioned previously, if this is the most "dirt" they can dig up on this Pope, then we can all breath a sigh of relief and get back to work. Regarding Liberation Theology, I went to a Jesuit University in the 90's; I literally witnessed the decline and eventual removal of the topic from the University roster (yes, there were actually several courses offered on it...and I took one). All I can say looking back is that liberation theology brought absolutely NOTHING good to the church (clergy and laity). It was a tool to further drive a modernist, secularist and marxist agenda in the guise of helping the poor in oppressive regimes. We already have the best armaments for oppression (hint: it's called the gospel) and were not in need of such novelty.
Post a Comment