One version of the story has it that Bergoglio intervened to save two radical lefty Jesuit priests, who were kidnapped by the junta and eventually found, drugged, tortured and terrorized. Another version is that Bergoglio basically sold them out as radicals to the junta. In a must-read interview with Horacio Verbitsky, he finds a way to reconcile the two accounts:
During the research for one of my books, I found documents in the archive of the foreign relations minister in Argentina, which, from my understanding, gave an end to the debate and show the double standard that Bergoglio used. The first document is a note in which Bergoglio asked the ministry to—the renewal of the passport of one of these two Jesuits that, after his releasing, was living in Germany, asking that the passport was renewed without necessity of this priest coming back to Argentina.
The second document is a note from the officer that received the petition recommending to his superior, the minister, the refusal of the renewal of the passport.
And the third document is a note from the same officer telling that these priests have links with subversion—that was the name that the military gave to all the people involved in opposition to the government, political or armed opposition to the military—and that he was jailed in the mechanics school of the navy, and saying that this information was provided to the officer by Father Jorge Mario Bergoglio, provincial superior of the Jesuit company. This means, to my understanding, a double standard. He asked the passport given to the priest in a formal note with his signature, but under the table he said the opposite and repeated the accusations that produced the kidnapping of these priests.
Read the whole thing. It exonerates Bergoglio in some ways but it’s very depressing over all. One of the two tortured priests told Verbitsky he suspected that Bergoglio had actually been directly involved in the torture and interrogations – because they involved theological questions of some erudition:
Verbitsky: They were tortured. They were interrogated. One of the interrogators had externally knowings [sic] about theological questions, that induced one of them, Orlando Yorio, to think that their own provincial, Bergoglio, had been involved in this interrogatory.
Amy Goodman: He said that—he said that Bergoglio himself had been part of the—his own interrogation, this Jesuit priest?
Verbitsky: He told me that he had the impression their own provincial, Bergoglio, was present during the interrogatory, which one of the interrogators had externally knowledge of theological questions.
My italics. If the new Pope was present during the torture and interrogation of a Jesuit dissident, then we have just returned to the days of the Inquisition. I pray to God this isn’t true.
The Pope is a man of few words outside the pulpit – according to this revealing profile first published in 2005:
Of course, there is that Trappist silence. His press secretary, a young priest, spends his time interpreting what the Cardinal does not say. The other part of his job is to turn down, on Bergoglio’s behalf, interviews or invitations to write articles. The Archbishop of Buenos Aires has almost no published work, and seems to become less visible with each passing year.
Well that last bit just changed a little. But I have to say that one of the more striking things about his appearance in Saint Peter’s Square was his unexpected request for silent prayer. He is about as hardline as one would expect from the current Curia on sexual and gender issues, and he ran the Jesuits under his command with an iron theological fist. But this doctrinal orthodoxy and demand of total obedience is balanced by a real record of pastoral care and symbolic servitude. From the same profile:
Cardinal Bergoglio regularly travels to the furthest ends of his three million-strong diocese to visit the poor. He wants them in the neediest barrios, in the hospitals accompanying Aids sufferers, in the popular kitchens for children. To take one example: when, last year, a number of young people died in a fire in a rock club tragedy, Bergoglio went to their aid in the middle of the night, arriving before the police and fire service, and long before the city authorities. Since the tragedy, one of his auxiliaries has a ministry to the family and friends of the victims, and has not been backward in criticising the government for its response to the tragedy.
(Photo: Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio celebrates the traditional Tedeum mass at the Metropolitan Cathedral on May 25, 2008 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. By Emiliano Lasalvia/LatinContent/Getty Images.)
The rebels are getting the hang of it (one more unforeseen consequence of the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq):
The 401 Syrian [IED] bomb attacks is still nowhere near the 3,000-plus attacks that occurred last year in Iraq, the birthplace of the improvised explosive device, let alone the 16,000 in Afghanistan. But they do underscore how the cheap, easily adaptable weapon has become a fixture of contemporary irregular warfare. And the data also provides a glimpse into how a durable insurgency, one with a significant terrorist component, is using the bombs.
Overall, 49 percent of the Syrian bombs — 197 of the 401 attacks — caused any casualties. That’s a higher success rate than in Afghanistan; although Assad’s forces don’t have the experience (or the gear) that U.S. troops have thwarting bomb manufacturers.
I may be overly cynical, but the selection of this “First ever non-European” pope is underwhelming me. It feels almost too well-crafted. It is a perfectly sized micro-step towards progress that will keep the world’s press buzzing for some time. It’s also about the safest pick you could imagine for a non-European. It is still an old white guy from an Italian-influence Catholic country with a mature congregation.
Is this a big head fake? The kind of seemingly, but not really, substantive move that is calibrated to allow the church to say “See! We modernized and became more inclusive! The rest of you (women, gays) are just being churlish now. Bask in our progressiveness!”
Another snarks:
Best comment on the new pope that I’ve heard so far: Pope Francis – because when you need to hide a German, hire an Argentinian.
Another:
I think it is fair to assume Pope Francis is unlikely to change the Church’s teaching on birth control, gay rights, et al, but doesn’t bother me as a frustrated modern Catholic. The new pope’s humanity (something so lacking with Ratzinger), his opposition to clericalism, and the belief that he is an outsider ready to reform Vatican governance, suggests he could radically alter the make-up of the College of Cardinals during his tenure. Francis may not be the modernist reformer so many Catholics desperately wish to see in the Vatican, but he may be the pope who aligns the chess pieces so such a reformer to follow him. That prospect alone gives me great hope for the Church.
There is one symbolic move Francis could make to greatly and quickly restore the Vatican’s credibility: Send Bernard Law home to deal with the consequences of what he let happen in the Boston Archdiocese.
I can deal with a church that is still behind the times on birth control and gay rights, as you’ve stated American Catholics are quite adapt at ignoring such doctrinal bollocks. What is unacceptable is protecting and enabling criminals who use the Church to torment children. Whatever else, if Francis can set a precedent that protecting pedophiles and protecting those who protect pedophiles will no longer be tolerated and can shift the College of Cardinals’ balance of power, his leadership will be a great leap forward for the Church.
The Pope is the successor of the Apostle who was graced with faith, and still denied Christ, cowered in fear with the other male apostles in the upper room after Jesus’ death, and would have us still circumcising boys and eating kosher. Yet managed to serve God.
That is exactly the attitude that is the problem with the Catholic Church. “We are all sinners who are doing our best to humbly serve God.” I haven’t heard enough to pass judgment on what Bergoglio did or did not do during the Videla regime, but I do know that this sort of casual response makes it much easier for a non-believer such as myself to comprehend how the disease of child rape has become so pervasive inside the Church. The charge of colluding with fascist dictators to help inconvenient dissenters vanish into thin air is not to be shrugged off with fatuous comparisons to Peter the Apostle, and the suggestion that denying Christ for the sake of self-preservation is in any way comparable to what Bergoglio is accused of doing is insulting to human dignity.
I don’t know for certain if Bergoglio assisted fascists. I do know that the Catholic Church was very tolerant towards rightist regimes during the 20th Century: Franco in Germany, Salazar in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile, the Ustashe in the Balkans, not to mention the celebrating of Hitler’s birthday from the pulpit right up until 1945 in Nazi Germany.
Some of Hitch’s most convincing work was illustrating the direct link between Fascism and the Catholic Right, and his chapter on his time visiting Videla’s Argentina in his memoirs seems worth re-reading today. I wish he were here today to give us his take on Francis.
I can only speak for myself, but I think your reader’s dismissive attitude towards past misdeeds is precisely what the Church doesn’t need right now. I’m not big on infallibility, but I was hoping for the Catholic Church to put forward someone who could make a clean break from the hideous crimes and cover-ups. It’s early, I know, but right now I am not impressed.
I have to say my own skepticism is growing. But I do not want to pre-judge. The Dish will, however, try to get to the bottom of who he is and what he has done, in particular in relationship with the fascist junta.
(Photo: White smoke emits from the chimney on the Sistine Chapel as a new Pope is elected on March 13, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican. By Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“Blackwater carried out countless life-threatening missions for the CIA. And, in return, the government chose to prosecute my people for doing exactly what was asked of them,” – Erik Prince, in an explosive Eli Lake exclusive on how Blackwater was really an arm of this country’s shadow government, the CIA.
It appears Francis – and not Benedict – may have to attend another court hearing to deal with a previous “crime against humanity” with respect to children under the Argentine dictatorship:
Tiempo Argentina is reporting that Bergoglio could be called to federal court to testify for the third time in a case involving crimes against humanity for his interaction with a pregnant woman named Elena de la Cuadra, and her husband, Hector Baratti, who were both kidnapped on February 23, 1977. According to Elena’s sister, Elena gave birth to a daughter who was then taken by Argentine authorities. At the time, Elena appealed to Bergoglio for help and received a letter saying that a bishop would intercede, but after a few months passed, the bishop reported that the baby had already been adopted by an important family and that the kidnapping could not be reversed. Despite the letter, Jorge Bergoglio has denied that he knew anything about kidnapped children until after the military dictatorship was overthrown.
Let me say on the record that I don’t believe that last statement. Which worries me.
Many readers counter the previous ones who opposed civil polygamy:
I find that the issue of polyamory suffers from being brought up almost exclusively in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. This makes it easy to dismiss, since no matter what your stance on polyamory, it is obviously a separate issue from same-sex relationships and must be considered on its own merits. I find myself unsure of my position. I’m deeply leery of the idea of granting polyamory a legally recognized status largely because of concerns over the exploitation of women in certain polygamous marriages, but on the other hand I see how this could be a standard that I’m applying unequally, seeing as how I support the right to two-person marriage despite the existence of domestic violence.
What I find much less convincing in the argument your reader put forward about the legal implications of multiple marriages. Yes, it would undoubtedly make things more complicated, but so what? If property still only corresponded to males we wouldn’t have to engage in tedious and costly division of property during divorce, but we don’t see this as a good reason to impose blatantly unfair standards in our laws. The debate over polyamory is worth having (on its own, not tied to unrelated marriage debates), but let’s have it on its merits.
Another reader:
A stable, committed triad could actually make raising children easier, three sets of hands being better than two, especially in an age when extended families often do not live close by. And perhaps it could even help cultivate stronger relationships between the adults: there would always be someone available to take care of the kids for date nights!
Another:
There is no reason to deny people the right to plural marriage. The same arguments used to deny acceptance or respect of gay relationships, much less marriage, are used in the same way for polygamists. Like working the old chestnut that gays are psychologically damaged and can never maintain healthy relationships, which is why we never see gays in long-term mutually beneficial relationships when society clearly doesn’t accept them, we have the current chestnut that polygamists are nothing but old, dictatorial white men who do nothing but marry 13-year-olds to build a harem of repressed women who bear them 40 children, all of whom live in a compound in the desert and lack modern education.
The fact is that as a society we have shunned the idea of plural marriage to the point where the behavior of pluralists is quite undesirable. The only way to accomplish polygamy without the daily damnation of a monogamous society is to live a sequestered life in the desert and marry within the tribe.
As far as polygamy creating a subculture of unmarried men, how sexist of us to assume that there aren’t men who would participate in a plural marriage to one woman! What if, as the other reader wrote, you end up with plural marriages that consist of one woman and two gay men?
Another:
Sorry, but how is that an “excellent counterpoint”? Civil law already deals with all sorts of permutations far more complex than any of those examples. All these issues can be dealt with when the relationships are formalized. To take the reader’s example, what if the man with the rare disease were unmarried, but had two children? Which of them would decide on his treatment? I mean, come on! We form business partnerships of many configurations every day. Civil law is certainly capable of dealing with these issues, and in fact does so already.
Another:
I’ve never quite understood your opposition to polygamy (outside of the obvious tactical need to distinguish gay marriage from plural marriage), especially on the grounds that it will destabilize society by reducing the number of available females. That assumes all multiple marriages will be polygynous, but if polyandry and group marriage are allowed, we could avoid those imbalances. It does worry me that polygamy, in societies where it dominates, has almost always been hand-in-hand with female subjugation. But this doesn’t seem a necessary relationship. And, in the choice between the freedom to structure our associations as we will, against the speculative fear of undermining women’s equality, freedom should at least be given a chance.
Another:
You bring up the point that polygamy, since it would largely be practiced by men with multiple wives, would leave too many men without mates, a dangerous situation. What if more lesbians were to marry than gay men? Wouldn’t that lead to the same state? If giving everybody a fair shake at marriage is to be considered a determining factor, does that mean that states should only grant as many licenses to all-male couples as they do all-female couples?
You also seem to equate sex and marriage. Men who wish to have sex with more than one woman already can. They can also have children with more than one woman. What they can’t do is give both those women (and the offspring they create) the rights and privileges attendent to marriage. And why not, assuming they are capable of maintaining their obligations to more than one woman and assuming that both women are open to the arrangement. In fact, one could say that polygamy, where all arrangements are out in the open, is more moral than the very common practice of spouse lying to and cheating on spouse.
If polygamy were legal, only a small percentage of people would opt for it. Not enough to affect anybody’s happiness any more than the option of same sex marriage denigrates the marriage of straight people.
Another:
Your reader’s questions about what will be done with survivor benefits and end-of-life decisions betrays a mind that has not thought much about either – much less polygamy. Already, we have situations where serial monogamy leads to multiple people being responsible for one another, and it’s very easy to list multiple beneficiaries on a pension plan or life insurance policy.
When my father-in-law died, both his first wife (my husband’s mother) and his second wife (my husband’s stepmother) received survivor benefits from Social Security, because they’d both been married to him for longer than the minimum requirement for benefits. Likewise, serial monogamy leads to blended families where it’s not always clear who should have final medical power, particularly if Mom had children by more than one husband, and is now divorced from both but living with her new beau.
The fact is that our marriage laws are terribly outdated, and need to be completely rethought. That’s why I’m in favor of leaving marriage to the religious institutions, and registering households in whatever configuration people want to live. If a same-gender couple, or a heterosexual couple, or an elderly couple who can’t have children, or any couple want to be responsible to and for each other, let them. If three people want to be responsible to and for each other, let them. If a gay man and his female best friend want to be responsible to and for each other, let them. Let’s stop worrying about who is screwing who, and just make it easier for people to be responsible in their relationships.
Partially because of his Latin American heritage, Michael Sean Winters expects Francis to be an advocate for the poor in an era of global economic disruption and turmoil:
Bergoglio and the other bishops in Latin America have been relentless in questioning and criticizing those who exercise power in ways that marginalize the poor. The criticism of capitalism is trenchant: He called the IMF’s efforts to squeeze interest payments out of a struggling Argentine economy “immoral.” Here, Bergoglio stands in continuity with Benedict whose criticism of modern capitalism never made headlines but was there for anyone who cared to look. Catholicism does not propose any specific economic or political systems, but it must always criticize whatever systems insult human dignity.
Bergoglio is … clearly an heir to the strong tradition of social-justice activism in the Latin American church. Again, this owes much to his Argentine background. If Argentina was once regarded as a hemispheric success story in economic development, its history since the 1950s has been much grimmer, with systematic decline and repeated bouts of hyperinflation, reaching catastrophic dimensions during the crisis of 1999 to 2002. In consequence, people who regarded themselves as citizens of a prosperous near-European economy faced ruin, the annihilation of their savings, and the loss of their jobs and homes.
Naturally, having lived through such a disaster, Bergoglio has placed the church’s social mission front and center in ways that a European would regard as alarmingly radical. Even more than the last two incumbents, Francis I will speak forcefully and critically about neoliberalism and global economic exploitation.
(Photo: Crib figurines’ artist Genny Di Virgilio works on a figurine depicting Pope Francis, the day after he was elected on March 14, 2013 in Naples. By STR/AFP/Getty Images)
The Hugh O’Shaughnessy piece we linked to yesterday – the most damning when it comes to Francis’ relationship with the military junta – has been corrected:
• This article was amended on 14 March 2013. The original article, published in 2011, wrongly suggested that Argentinian journalist Horacio Verbitsky claimed that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio connived with the Argentinian navy to hide political prisoners on an island called El Silencio during an inspection by human rights monitors. Although Verbitsky makes other allegations about Bergoglio’s complicity in human right abuses, he does not make this claim. The original article also wrongly described El Silencio as Bergoglio’s “holiday home”. This has been corrected.”
We will surely hear more from Verbitsky, whose reputation is very good in Argentina.
The Dish 