Fascinating interview at Rorate Caeli of Henry Sire, author of The Dictator Pope:
A Hispanic culture?
Bergoglio is a classic product of Argentinian society, which is a caricature of Spanish society with special elements such as Peronism added. Essentially, those who try to understand Bergoglio from the standards of Anglo-Saxon or Germanic decency and correct conduct find themselves struggling to grasp the culture of unprincipled selfishness which for an Argentinian is just part of the climate.
Among the Jesuits in Argentina, Bergoglio was considered a “conservative”. He owed his career to “conservatives.” He had no support from his order. What went wrong?
You touch on the great mystery of Bergoglio’s career, his transition from the right-hand man of the “reactionary” Cardinal Quarracino in Buenos Aires to the favourite of the St Gallen Group. The only explanation I can see is that, in the declining years of Pope John Paul II, it was expected that a more liberal pope would succeed him, and Bergoglio wanted to be on the winning side. I don’t think he seriously expected to be the papal candidate himself before 2005. But essentially the problem is that Bergoglio has no real principles, like the typical Peronist that he is.
How would you describe Francis in psychological terms? He was in therapy with the Austrian-Jewish emigree Maria Langer who was more a Marxist ideologue than a psychologist. Langer was about the age of Bergoglio’s mother. Francis speaks about his family, especially his grandmother, but never about his mother. Why?
You are right that Bergoglio comes from a difficult family setting, and he has always avoided speaking about his parents. His background as a night-club bouncer (before he joined the Jesuits) is not exactly what we have been used to in modern Vicars of Christ. But I don’t know enough about his early history to be able to comment.
Recently you explained on Twitter that a comparison between Francis and Stalin could be appropriate. In which sense?
I was replying to a comment made on Twitter, and the burden of my reply was that it is more appropriate to compare Bergoglio to Perón.
Peronist or just opportunist? In recent history, how many priests have been named bishops for their unwavering fidelity to the Faith? Isn’t opportunism the first requirement for those who want to climb the career ladder in the Church?
There are some exceptions: Cardinals Sarah and Burke, for example. But what distinguishes Bergoglio is that opportunism is part of an elaborate political culture in which he was brought up, and the basis for a cunning and manipulative career, in which most bishops don’t match him.
Francis is an Italo-Argentinean who runs the Vatican in an Italio-Argentinean way with lots of minions and yes-men around him. Should the Church become more Anglo-Saxon?
I am not very Anglo-Saxon myself and I wouldn’t like to put the case in national terms. It has certainly been a catastrophe for the Church to have as pope the representative of a very bad political culture such as Argentina’s. The first step towards reform will be to escape from that legacy.
What is this political culture?
Dictatorial methods, obviously. Other elements in the culture include a loud-mouthed populism which enables a politician to claim that he is supporting the people when in fact he does nothing for them, and a hereditary anti-Yankeeism which has been the motivation for Francis’s disastrous sell-out to the Chinese Communist government.
Francis loves to hide behind contradictions, for instances, by calling abortion a hit job and by calling the abortionist Emma Bonino one of the “great Italians.” What “tactic” is behind this?
This again is typical Peronism, throwing out contradictory signals to opposite parties. An Argentinian would understand it perfectly well, but to the rest of the world it appears incomprehensible.
Apart from Perón, does Francis not know Saint Paul’s “your word be yes, yes or no, no?
All through his life, Bergoglio’s yes has been no, and his no has been yes.
Go here to read the rest.
What is this political culture? Dictatorial methods, obviously.
Years ago, I attended a talk by the Latin American scholar Wm. Ascher. He offered a vignette about a policy pratfall of the military regime which ran the country from 1966 to 1973, the burden of which is that obstructive veto groups have a lot of juice in Argentina. “What kind of military government caves in to the butchers’ union?” Argentina had five military regimes between 1930 and 1983, holding office for about 22 years in sum. The last one managed to suppress the country’s terrorist organizations, albeit with ghastly collateral damage. They also made a mess of economic policy (or, more precisely, proved unable to clean up the mess left by Peron’s widow). Aside from stomping the Monteneros to death, not sure any of those regimes had any accomplishments of note. The military since 1983 has been committed to leaving the mess to the politicians, who have had passable years and bad years in the intervening decades. Peronism is now a reference point and a disposition; there is no corporate organization which embodies it any longer and the soi-disant Peronist parties have more or less accepted a competitive political order.
One thing I’d point out to you is the degree to which the Democratic Party now has Peronist characteristics.
Peron tried to be all things to all men and the Peronist parties of Argentina range from the far right to the far left. One defining legacy of Peron is the degree to which Argentinian politics is a matter of personalities rather than policy, that and fairly feckless economic policies.
The Democrats would be more Peronist but for the fact that their social policies tend to be unpopular generally, and their politicians since RFK have been charisma challenged, with the possible exceptions of Obama and Sanders.
Sire’s diagnosis makes sense. If you need any more proof, note his decision to refuse visiting his homeland. He knows they know what he is. And the reception would be ugly. A politician who micromanages everything about his image and carefully curates only friendly media outlets can’t risk that.
The fact so few of his family members have said anything about him is a weird lacunae. He had four siblings who had families and his parents were part of a network of larger families, IIRC. But apart from an early interview with his only surviving sibling (a sister) or the occasional comment by his painter niece, bupkis. I have read stories about an unhappy family life, but such have not been corroborated so I won’t repeat them. The silence seems eloquent enough, though.
and their politicians since RFK have been charisma challenged, with the possible exceptions of Obama and Sanders.
Pet peeve. IIRC, Max Weber made use of ‘charismatic authority’ to describe rare inspirational ability, not the capacity to put a couple of applause lines together. You might call Martin Luther King ‘charismatic’; you might call John Kennedy charismatic-in-retrospect. Perhaps Wm. Jennings Bryan. Perhaps Winston Churchill. Charisma is something that is seldom necessary or even desirable in public life. (I think what our system promotes is men and women who can work a room, especially when it’s filled with potential campaign donors. They’re very seldom talented public speakers. (Ronald Reagan, Jesse Jackson, and all three Kennedy brothers were talented public speakers. Gerald Ford could deliver a fine speech if he gave it oodles of preparation time he didn’t have. Obama’s positively vaporous).
Peron tried to be all things to all men and the Peronist parties of Argentina range from the far right to the far left.
The American Universities Field Staff issued a report in 1963 with a chapter on Argentina. In the eyes of the author, what characterized Argentine political life ca. 1960 was a tendency to see politics as a means of seizing assets and income from your opponents and giving to your clients. That’s one aspect of the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
Charisma can be used for good or ill, but it tends to be a great asset for a leader. Andrew Jackson had it, both the Roosevelts had it, Reagan had it, Trump has it. If you don’t have it, there is nothing you can do to get it.
I think you’re using a broader definition of ‘charisma’ than I ever would. A more generic term ‘inspirational ability’ might be a better description of to what you’re referring.
Roosevelt and Reagan have been reference points for their respective parties for decades, as has John Kennedy in a different way. As we speak, I think Roosevelt (a benign figure in most respect, not all) and the nexus of things associated with him is being replaced with something perfectly rancid which finds its origins in the teachers’ colleges and expresses the hostility of one stratum of the white population for another. Reagan I think is still there.
Whatever his influences, no one in honesty can claim he is a Christian and certainly not Catholic. His speech and acts are exactly those of a Communist. In fact, he is one of the most prolific and demonic revolutionaries against Christ and His Church than any other heretic or schismatic in history with more devastating results because he is falsely considered to be the leader of the Catholic Church.
The crowd in the WH make the Peronistas look ‘decent.’
Argentina is a nation endowed with abundance natural resources and a largely European population. Yet, compared to the former [before the CCP-controlled junta] US, it is a relative basket case.
To wit, the triumph of hope over experience. in June 2017,
Argentina floated [quotes not necessary] $2.75 billion, 7.125%, 100 year bonds priced @ 7.9%; [they think coupon will repay in 2030, fully faulty logic], if doesn’t default. Which since 1816, Argentina defaulted seven times, three times were in the past 25 years.
My son attended engineering grad school at UPR Mayaguez. He made close friends of several Argentinians who we hosted in our home twice on school vacations. They were bright young men. At one point I said Argentina is a rich land and the people are strong. Why is it such a basket case? One of them knew. It’s the robber politicians that go after the people at every opportunity. Somehow the people put up with it. No Second Amendment, I presume.
The whole interview (it has 2 parts) is highly disturbing. It indicates the worst we suspected of Bergoglio does not even come close.