Habemus Papam!

[scottycelt]

There's another piece in today's Guardian concerning Jorge Bergoglio and the 70s Junta in Argentina.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...a-military-era

I see with each Guardian article the accusations and allegations are given a rather more balanced perspective ...

'... But Verbitsky's views are seen as overly simplistic by other observers of that era. "Verbitsky is not wrong, but he doesn't understand the complexity of Bergoglio's position back then when things were so dangerous," said Robert Cox, a British journalist and former editor of the Buenos Aires Herald, the only newspaper in Argentina that reported the murders as they happened. "He can't see how difficult it was to operate under those circumstances."
But Cox, who moved to North Carolina after death threats against his family in 1979, suggests Bergoglio could have done more. "I don't think he gave them in," he said. "But Bergoglio didn't protect them, he didn't speak out."
Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who won the 1980 Nobel peace prize for documenting the junta's atrocities, takes a similar view. "Perhaps he didn't have the courage of other priests, but he never collaborated with the dictatorship," he told the Associated Press. "Bergoglio was no accomplice of the dictatorship. He can't be accused of that." The vast majority of Argentinians view the dictatorship era as appalling.
Others suggest that Bergoglio was actually a hero. Francesca Ambrogetti, co-author of The Jesuit – a flattering biography of the new pope – says Bergoglio told her he met the dictator Jose Rafael Videla and Eduardo Massera, the head of the navy which was in charge of some concentration camps, to try and intercede on behalf of the priests.
She said he took great risks to save others. "I believe he did all he could at that time," she said. "It's a complex issue that is very difficult to explain after so many years." '

I would imagine trying to save as many lives as possible under vicious regimes of either the extreme right or left is VERY complex.

If Bergoglio was 'a collaborator' with the Junta so were Shostakovitch and other Russian artists with the mass-murderer Stalin.

That would be, I think, a rather harsh and blissfully ignorant appraisal of the almost impossible situation in which they found themselves.

'There, but for the Grace of God .......'

[Julien Sorel]

I posted it for information. "There but for the Grace of God" is a bit of a simplification of the relation between Church and State in South and Central America and in Spain under Franco; the Church had and has influence and power. Shostakovich didn't in the Soviet Union, so I don't see the one has anything to do with the other. If a senior cleric had denounced the leadership of a fascist Junta he'd have been taking a risk, of course. But he'd have been taking a risk under a certain level of protectedness and his words would have been influential. Why would Stalin have cared what Shostakovich said? He'd have been committing suicide, for no purpose.

What runs as a subtext through this is the Catholic Church's fear of Communism. So it's perhaps unsurprising that men who seem to baulk at very little were prepared to collaborate with or sponsor anti-Communist regimes which murdered opponents including Communists (that's not a remark specifically about the new Pope. Perhaps he didn't). http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/comment/vatican.htm

Two further points. (a) one of his accusers is Graciela Yorio, the sister of one of the arrested Jesuit Priests, Orlando Yorio. (b) from an early morning trawl of the internet there are bloggers and comments to blogs denouncing Horacio Verbitsky, the journalist, as an inevitable enemy of the Church because he's a Jew.

[ahinton]

All is explained by Tim Harford on "More or Less". 25th February is the relevant programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless

Well, insofar as any "explanation" can be possible! It certainly identifies the sheer laxity of approach to this statistic and that any "reported" figures are more or less meaningless; the one particularly useful anomaly that it addresses is those who have left the Church but whom the Church still regards as part of its membership purely on the grounds of their having been baptised into that Church. As I mentioned (although the programme didn't), it is misleading to count those under a certain age (though I'm not sure whether that should necessarily be the age of majority in any particular country) because what makes a Catholic a Catholic is not mere baptism but a conscious and willing decision on his/her part - a decision that cannot realistically be made at the age at which many are baptised.

In short, we do not and cannot know how many Catholics there are at any given time and it would only be possible to get an approximate idea of this figure if it were possible to identify the number of practising adult Catholics who would identify themselves as such and, were that to be achievable, I imagine that the total world figure would likely be an 8-figure rather than a 10-figure one.

[scottycelt]

I posted it for information. "There but for the Grace of God" is a bit of a simplification of the relation between Church and State in South and Central America and in Spain under Franco; the Church had and has influence and power. Shostakovich didn't in the Soviet Union, so I don't see the one has anything to do with the other. If a senior cleric had denounced the leadership of a fascist Junta he'd have been taking a risk, of course. But he'd have been taking a risk under a certain level of protectedness and his words would have been influential. Why would Stalin have cared what Shostakovich said? He'd have been committing suicide, for no purpose.

What runs as a subtext through this is the Catholic Church's fear of Communism. So it's perhaps unsurprising that men who seem to baulk at very little were prepared to collaborate with or sponsor anti-Communist regimes which murdered opponents including Communists (that's not a remark specifically about the new Pope. Perhaps he didn't). http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/comment/vatican.htm

Two further points. (a) one of his accusers is Graciela Yorio, the sister of one of the arrested Jesuit Priests, Orlando Yorio. (b) from an early morning trawl of the internet there are bloggers and comments to blogs denouncing Horacio Verbitsky, the journalist, as an inevitable enemy of the Church because he's a Jew.

Your last remark is an old trick. Throw in a particularly nasty blog comment from an idiot and infer it must have been written by someone connected to an organisation that you despise. It won't fool anyone with even just half a brain, though you now appear, yourself, to be doubting the veracity of the allegations against the new Pope?

If you really want to know why the Catholic Church supported a Spanish army general in order to survive and to make 'the best of a bad job' here is a possible answer.

According to WIKI ...

The Civil War in Spain started in 1936, during which thousands of churches were destroyed, thirteen bishops and some 7,000 clergy and religious Spaniards were assassinated.^[43] Catholics largely supported Franco and the Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939.
Anti-clerical assaults during what has been termed by the Nationalists Red Terror included sacking and burning monasteries and churches and killing 6,832 priests,^[44] including 13 bishops, 4,184 diocesan priests, 2,365 members of male religious orders, among them 259 Claretians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits.
13 bishops were killed from the dioceses of Sigüenza, Lleida, Cuenca, Barbastro Segorbe, Jaén, Ciudad Real, Almería, Guadix,Barcelona, Teruel and the auxiliary of Tarragona.^[45] Aware of the dangers, they all decided to remain in their cities. I cannot go, only here is my responsibility, whatever may happen, said the Bishop of Cuenca^[45] In addition 4,172 diocesan priests, 2,364 monks and friars, among them 259 Clarentians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits were killed.^[46] In some dioceses, a number of secular priests were killed:'

If you would like a list of other countries where Catholics were subject to sometimes murderous persecution by leftist-anarchist thugs here's the full WIKI page.

Be warned ... it doesn't make for very pleasant reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

[ahinton]

If Bergoglio was 'a collaborator' with the Junta so were Shostakovitch and other Russian artists with the mass-murderer Stalin.

Julien Sorel has already provided the correct and serious answer to this misapprehension; all that I would add is that Shostakovich wrote finer symphonies than Bergoglio and that - as a matter of possible interest - when once asked if he believed in God, he is reported to have replied that he didn't and that he was very sorry about it - make of that what you will...

[Julien Sorel]

Your last remark is an old trick. Throw in a particularly nasty blog comment from an idiot and infer it must have been written by someone connected to an organisation that you despise. It won't fool anyone with even just half a brain, though you now appear, yourself, to be doubting the veracity of the allegations against the new Pope?

If you really want to know why the Catholic Church supported a Spanish army general in order to survive and to make 'the best of a bad job' here is a possible answer.

According to WIKI ...

The Civil War in Spain started in 1936, during which thousands of churches were destroyed, thirteen bishops and some 7,000 clergy and religious Spaniards were assassinated.^[43] Catholics largely supported Franco and the Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939.
Anti-clerical assaults during what has been termed by the Nationalists Red Terror included sacking and burning monasteries and churches and killing 6,832 priests,^[44] including 13 bishops, 4,184 diocesan priests, 2,365 members of male religious orders, among them 259 Claretians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits.
13 bishops were killed from the dioceses of Sigüenza, Lleida, Cuenca, Barbastro Segorbe, Jaén, Ciudad Real, Almería, Guadix,Barcelona, Teruel and the auxiliary of Tarragona.^[45] Aware of the dangers, they all decided to remain in their cities. I cannot go, only here is my responsibility, whatever may happen, said the Bishop of Cuenca^[45] In addition 4,172 diocesan priests, 2,364 monks and friars, among them 259 Clarentians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits were killed.^[46] In some dioceses, a number of secular priests were killed:'

If you would like a list of other countries where Catholics were subject to sometimes murderous persecution by leftist-anarchist thugs here's the full WIKI page.

Be warned ... it doesn't make for very pleasant reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

It could only be an old trick if it was any sort of trick at all. An internet search will show you it's not an isolated comment. I'd suggest that's because with some people old mentalities never change.

The Socialist government in Spain, at the time, condemned the killing and physical assaults on priests and quite rightly so. Have you ever stopped to wonder why anti-clericalism has such a long history? (one that isn't by any means inevitably associated with what you call leftist-anarchism, or is even contemporaneous with leftist-anarchism).

You've come out with this "best of a bad job" argument before. It (a) understates the enthusiastic interconnectedness of many in the Catholic hierarchy with Franco's regime (if you want to quote Wikipedia

At the end of the Spanish Civil War, according to the calculations of the regime, there were more than 270,000 men and women held in the regime's prisons and some 500,000 fled into exile. Large numbers of those captured were returned to Spain or interned in Nazi concentration camps as stateless enemies. Between six and seven thousand exiles from Spain died in Mauthausen. It has been estimated that more than 200,000 Spaniards died in the first years of the dictatorship, from 1940–42, as a result of political repression, hunger and disease related to the conflict.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Spain)

(b) it doesn't say much for an organisation that claims spiritual and moral authority that it is prepared to act on a "best of a bad job" mentality.

[gurnemanz]

The new Pope has stated today: Let us never give in to the pessimism, to that bitterness, that the devil places before us every day." Fair enough to suggest that pessimism and bitterness are not always beneficial human qualities (clap hands and be happy), but to me pessimism and bitterness are not actually evil. By mentioning the devil he seems to be suggesting that they are. By fearing the worst, are people succumbing to the Devil? Pessimists are often pleasantly surprised. My paper today tells me that he has condemned gay marriage as "the devil's movement". Do Catholics actually still believe in the Devil or do they just use it as a figure of speech to help them express their disapproval of something?

[Padraig]

Good questions, gurnemanz. What do you think yourself? What is 'actually evil'? Are pessimism and bitterness sometimes 'beneficial'? What is 'the worst' in 'fearing the worst'? Are pessimists EVER pleasantly surprised? Do you trust your 'paper'? Your last two questions are particularly difficult - I would answer 'No' and 'No', speaking for myself, but would request a few more pages to elaborate.
No, nothing is easy.

[Julien Sorel]

My paper today tells me that he has condemned gay marriage as "the devil's movement". Do Catholics actually still believe in the Devil or do they just use it as a figure of speech to help them express their disapproval of something?

Do you trust your 'paper'?

He is uniformly quoted (both approvingly and disapprovingly) as having said (concerning a bill to legalise same sex marriage in Argentina):

“No seamos ingenuos, no estamos hablando de una batalla política simple, es una pretensión destructiva en contra del plan de Dios. No estamos hablando de un proyecto de ley simple, sino más bien una maquinación del Padre de la Mentira que pretende confundir y engañar a los hijos de Dios. ”

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

By Padre de la Mentira he does, I presume, mean the Devil and not Rupert Murdoch.

For information, only.

[Padraig]

He is uniformly quoted (both approvingly and disapprovingly) as having said (concerning a bill to legalise same sex marriage in Argentina):

“No seamos ingenuos, no estamos hablando de una batalla política simple, es una pretensión destructiva en contra del plan de Dios. No estamos hablando de un proyecto de ley simple, sino más bien una maquinación del Padre de la Mentira que pretende confundir y engañar a los hijos de Dios. ”

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

By Padre de la Mentira he does, I presume, mean the Devil and not Rupert Murdoch.

For information, only.

Thank you JS. My question of trust was thoughtless: the Pope's against the bill to legalise same sex marriage in Argentina.

Nevertheless the questions raised in the previous post concerning the devil, evil and related matters are not easy, and are not entirely separate, as the quote from the paper indicates. And, as a good Irishman coming up to St Patrick's Day itself, I answer by asking 'What do you think yourself'?

Not you, of course, JS; but feel free.

[Julien Sorel]

And, as a good Irishman coming up to St Patrick's Day itself, I answer by asking 'What do you think yourself'?

Not you, of course, JS; but feel free.

I think this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nality-of-evil is an interesting piece (apologies for referring to The Guardian again: Hannah Arendt was a fine thinker and so is Judith Butler. I recalled Butler commenting on Arendt's "banality of evil").

I don't think personifications like "Padre de la Mentira" are useful, but I suppose I wouldn't. What does strike me is how close to Manichaeism that personification looks to this outsider. I think it's a preposterous and hurtful and foolish thing to say about same sex marriage (disinterestedly as someone who is 'heterosexual'). But this takes us round the houses again!

[ahinton]

The new Pope has stated today: Let us never give in to the pessimism, to that bitterness, that the devil places before us every day."

This article also states
"Pope Francis has urged his cardinals "to find new ways to bring evangelisation to the ends of the Earth"", thereby apparently revealing the Flat Earth Society to be alive and well after all - or at least thriving in Vatican City.

Fair enough to suggest that pessimism and bitterness are not always beneficial human qualities (clap hands and be happy), but to me pessimism and bitterness are not actually evil. By mentioning the devil he seems to be suggesting that they are. By fearing the worst, are people succumbing to the Devil? Pessimists are often pleasantly surprised.

Pessimism is at times inevitable. Bitterness is certainly an unwelcome human quality and tends to rebound upon the person feeling or expressing it.

My paper today tells me that he has condemned gay marriage as "the devil's movement". Do Catholics actually still believe in the Devil or do they just use it as a figure of speech to help them express their disapproval of something?

I don't know (although no doubt scotty does), but in any case I cannot help but ask myself if the Pope believes that "the devil" is gay. Even if "the devil" is regarded by the Pope as "a figure of speech" only, it is one that he must surely be applying consciously to all governments in the world who have legislated in favour of it, including that of his own country; that's surely a somewhat dangerous position for him to take, isn't it? - especially so very soon after his election...

But as long as the Church continues to preach "evil" (by which, of course, I mean preaching that there is such a thing!), it will persist in its traditional promotion of fear and guilt and I think that quite a few of us know where and to what kind of conduct that can lead; to me, as a complete outsider, it seems so very much at odds with the fundamentals of Christ's teaching, but maybe that's because I'm failing to understand something equally fundamental.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would take no especial pleasure in witnessing people leaving the Church in their droves because of this and all the other issues that I've mentioned earlier, thereby weakening it, perhaps irreparably and irrevocably. - but the Church is hardly likely to take a blind bit of notice of my concerns, since I am not even a formally confirmed Christian!...

[Serial_Apologist]

But as long as the Church continues to preach "evil" (by which, of course, I mean preaching that there is such a thing!), it will persist in its traditional promotion of fear and guilt and I think that quite a few of us know where and to what kind of conduct that can lead; to me, as a complete outsider, it seems so very much at odds with the fundamentals of Christ's teaching, but maybe that's because I'm failing to understand something equally fundamental.

Ahinton, your take on Christianity is generous one, iimss. Yes, Christ's message is one of compassion, unselfishness and against greed of all kinds. It has always been, in all its manifestations, deeply in hoc to the notion of inborn weakness and untrustworthiness, the eternal battle with our "animal nature" (which is at one with the idea that we are bidden to rule over the rest of nature, from which we are separate by virtue of the God-given power of choice and responsibility). In the proverbial end, salvation through Christ is our only ticket to the heavenly hereafter; and that comes of course loaded with conditions.

[Padraig]

I don't think personifications like "Padre de la Mentira" are useful, but I suppose I wouldn't. What does strike me is how close to Manichaeism that personification looks to this outsider. I think it's a preposterous and hurtful and foolish thing to say about same sex marriage (disinterestedly as someone who is 'heterosexual'). But this takes us round the houses again!

You're probably right about Arendt and Butler being fine thinkers, JS; I'm not too well up in that sort of thing. It's a bit like the old Classical Music thing in a way: of the minority who take an interest in it, there is a minority who specialise to the nth degree. One locates oneself appropriately

I beg your pardon.
I've lost my thread! I was going to say that I can't swop wiki and newspaper references as a method of discussion. I'm not well enough read. But I think I can tell when people are looking to swop ideas rather than force ideas in discussions like this, and I do not feel, JS, that you are forcing your views, forceful as they are. While I operate on a different level from you, and others who love the intellectual cut and thrust, I have to stand by my own convictions(?) to some extent, and by my fellow religionists, lay and clerical, who do not deserve all of the negative abuse that is all too easy to heap upon us at this time.

[Julien Sorel]

the eternal battle with our "animal nature" (which is at one with the idea that we are bidden to rule over the rest of nature, from which we are separate by virtue of the God-given power of choice and responsibility).

There is an alternative tradition that sees Nature as God's book, full of analogies and metaphors and intimately involving us. I never miss a chance to recommend Pierre Hadot's great book The Veil of Isis: An Essay on the History of the Idea of Nature ... and here's a chance!

Ian Hacking's review (I love a passage he quotes):

Pagan? Monotheism has been so triumphant that we have forgotten about pagans. Hadot recalls a pagan prefect, appalled that a Christian emperor wanted to remove the Altar of Victory from the Roman Senate: ‘We contemplate the same stars, the Heavens are common to us all, and the same world surrounds us. What matters the path of wisdom by which each person seeks the truth?’ Hadot imagines a world in which these words are inscribed in gold on the doors of all ‘churches, synagogues, mosques and temples’.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n09/ian-hacking/almost-zero

Hadot is a wonder. For me the doctrine of Original Sin is one of the most baleful ideas ever to pop into the human mind. And one of the most controlling, of course.