Perhaps it appears that way from the titles but if you read the articles you’ll see that people are not suggesting that Pope Francis is a card-carrying Peronist. Rather, people are noticing that Peronism, the political culture in which he has lived his entire life, was an influence on his thinking. Yeah, I know, shocking.
I would note that beginning in adolescence Pope Francis wished to become a Catholic priest, entered the seminary after high school and spent the next thirteen years receiving formation as a Jesuit. He is not and never was a politician.
Most people are not politicians. Yet they are still influenced by their political culture. Some reject what they see, others absorb.
Yes, I agree. What I really disagreed with was what the title of the article implied (as you correctly pointed out in your prior comment): “You can’t understand Pope Francis without Juan Peron–and Evita”.
How long will it take to understand one cannot pigeonhole the Pope into political ideas or ideologies? Is it so hard?
You mean Pope Peron and Saint Evita?
Bear in mind that editors intentionally select sensational and provocative titles but in this case it is not an unreasonable one. A lot of smart people had been scratching their heads at Pope Francis’ economic proclamations but when they turned their attention to Argentina and Peronism they went, “aha!” Pope Francis makes more sense if you understand the economic beliefs of Peronism (and the economic history of Argentina) which, of course, was designed to appeal to a Catholic country.Yes, I agree. What I really disagreed with was what the title of the article implied (as you correctly pointed out in your prior comment): “You can’t understand Pope Francis without Juan Peron–and Evita”.
I don’t at all doubt that most people are influenced by their political environment, but I thought the title of the article was incorrect by implying (or seeming to imply) Pope Francis was significantly influenced by Peronism or perhaps was a Peronist. He just wasn’t, but no doubt the political chaos from the left, right or center in Argentina during the 1970’s did not escape his attention or affect his life. It was extreme.
It was not your comment I disagreed with, and I should have made that clear.
I sincerely do not understand what you mean. I cannot grasp it
Bubba,no. It does not make any sense .
Again, I agree (in part). In the Buenos Aires of the 1970’s there were many Catholics who lived in abject poverty, and Jorge Bergoglio, the future Pope Francis, was a Jesuit missionary in Buenos Aires. And of course he worked to help the poor, and in that political environment anyone who assisted the poor was perceived as a leftist. And this included the Jesuits. There were serious consequences that included the killing of priests and nuns. As many witnesses have since attested, Bergoglio, by then the Jesuit provincial of Argentina, developed contacts with both political and military officials during the Dirty War of the ‘disappeared’ in an attempt to protect and in instance rescue both his Jesuit priests and others. The myth of his ‘Peronism’ originated among those who did not understand what he was attempting behind the scenes. In the political chaos, Peronism was everything from the far left to the far right.
There is nothing bizarre about studying the context of a person to better understand his thinking.
I think Pope Francis is more politcal than some are prepared to allow. By that I do not mean that he is a politician in pursuit of power but, rather, that he is not above using politics to achieve his aims. No pope can afford be apolitical, not even Pope Benedict. And certainly the papacy is a political office of sorts. In the middle ages the pope was treated like a king and the clergy was part of the aristocracy.
I said " bizarre interpretations" .
If any one thing is certain, it is that Pope Francis does not want to be treated as a monarch. But, once again, I agree in part: as many see it, the pope is both apolitical and a master of politics. While in Argentina, he worked quietly and knew better than to make any public political comment. If there were to be misperceptions and rumors, then so be it. There are several good biographies of Pope Francis that make this abundantly clear.
There is a natural tension between these two personas: holiness, and the more remote from laity the holier, and influencer, which requires getting into the muck of life.
The trouble is that he seems to use the word to signify something quite different from how others use it, particularly how Catholic advocates of capitalism use it. Nobody who truly understands capitalism would say that it has become a central part of our cultural paradigm. What we have is a mixed economy.
I do not believe this particular tension even exists for Pope Francis. He was very much in the “muck of life” as both a Jesuit missionary in Buenos Aires and later as the Jesuit provincial of Argentina. In his speech before the conclave that would soon elect him the Supreme Pontiff, he was very clear that he believed that a “pristine Catholicism” that existed apart from the laity was the very problem of the Church today. Many believe this speech was crucial to his election.
I don’t agree that Pope Francis as avoided or solved the tensions but he has chosen a particular balance between them.
The ideal of capitalism is anything but amoral. But certainly there is the popular notion that it is so and Pope Francis seems to subscribe to this view. Of course, individuals can be amoral or immoral. That is, they can fall short of the ideals.
Of course, Laudato Si postdates the financial meltdown of 2008 and much else. I am referring to the more general perception that capitalism is amoral (or even immoral). Ethics, in this view, become a liability and, thus, something that a “good” businessman cannot justify to his shareholders.
As I see it, Pope Frances is not conflicted about his vision of the papacy. It seems his preference is for a faith informed from the periphery (of the religiosity of the people) rather than from the top down. He favors a collegial approach where authority is pushed down to the lowest levels feasible, and I believe he expects bishops and parish priests to address questions locally, in accordance with Church teaching.
Juan Peron and his views are more complicated than that. While that is true, he also sheltered fascists and people with far right views. He is somewhat similar to brazils Vargas, a latin American third way type. He had some left wing views, but he wasn’t an anticlerical liberal like Calles or benito juarez. Kind of sad that his judicilaist party has become nothing more than a token socially liberal party.
I didn’t say he was “conflicted”, I pointed out that he had chosen a particular balance along a fault of tension. But what you are describing is the principle of subsidiarity applied to the clergy. But, of course, it is a much more general principle than that.
Perhaps you could edify us by pointing to the “results of unfettered capitalism”. Yes, there are certainly many flavors of capitalism but I’m not sure how that justifies the Popes approach to it.
That’s fair enough to a first approximation. But “Wall Street” is simply a metaphor for equity ownership and valuation, or more specifically, the professional management of it. It’s not some evil force from hell. It’s a human institution. It is no more amoral or unethical than, say, the institutions of government that some would seek to impose over it.