Roman Catholic

Covered at Reason 24/7: Pope Francis I May Be Caught Up in Argentine Junta's Crimes

|

Reason 24/7
Reason

As it turns out, the new pope, Francis I, has a bit of baggage from his days as plain ol' Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina. It seems that he hit his career stride during the days when a rather unpleasant military junta ruled the country (as opposed to Argentina's other unpleasant governments), and may have worked a bit more closely with that regime than somebody aspiring to humanitarian status probably should.

From Reuters:

Bergoglio's career success coincided with the bloody 1976-1983 military dictatorship, during which up to 30,000 suspected leftists were kidnapped and killed—which prompted sharp questions about his role.

The most well-known episode relates to the abduction of two Jesuits whom the military government secretly jailed for their work in poor neighborhoods.

According to "The Silence," a book written by journalist Horacio Verbitsky, Bergoglio withdrew his order's protection of the two men after they refused to quit visiting the slums, which ultimately paved the way for their capture.

Verbitsky's book is based on statements by Orlando Yorio, one of the kidnapped Jesuits, before he died of natural causes in 2000. Both of the abducted clergymen suffered five months of imprisonment.

"History condemns him. It shows him to be opposed to all innovation in the Church and above all, during the dictatorship, it shows he was very cozy with the military," Fortunato Mallimacci, the former dean of social sciences at the Universidad de Buenos Aires, once said.

His actions during this period strained his relations with many brother Jesuits around the world, who tend to be more politically liberal.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: French Business Executives Join Exodus

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is there an allegation that he actually did something wrong in there?

    Or is this just a long way of saying he is “icky”?

    1. I guess if one is a Catholic priest in South-America and isn’t into “liberation theology” that automatically makes them wrong.

    2. Nice sophistry and apology you got going on there, Emmy. Please provide your schema for wrongdoing with particular attention to the question of withdrawing protection knowing that act would lead to the imprisonment, torture or death of those from whom protection was withdrawn.

      1. Re: Tonio,

        Please provide your schema for wrongdoing with particular attention to the question of withdrawing protection knowing [sic] that act would lead to the imprisonment, torture or death of those from whom protection was withdrawn.

        You’re ascribing to a mere mortal the ability to know the future, Tonio. NAP establishes that there’s no ethical or moral crime when you REFUSE to do something. You may not like it, but your preferences are irrelevant when it comes to moral judgements.

        1. OM,
          “NAP establishes that there’s no ethical or moral crime when you REFUSE to do something.”
          Agreed, but “withdrawing” requires action, not a refusal of action.

          1. Re: Sevo,

            Agreed, but “withdrawing” requires action, not a refusal of action.

            You’re equivocating, Sevo. If I “withdraw” my support for Ron Paul, am I actively taking away something that belonged to him? We’re not talking about opening the wall shield of Arrakeen, Sev.

            1. “You’re equivocating, Sevo. If I “withdraw” my support for Ron Paul, am I actively taking away something that belonged to him?”

              Nothing of the sort.
              The guy’s “withdrawal” of protection, if I understand it, meant he had to file forms with the government, specifically taking that action.
              That is in no way analogous to me “not supporting” a US politico.

      2. So Tonio thinks Popes are icky. He’s normally pretty rational. But he has lost his shit on this one. I guess if Frank had sent in the albino assassin knights templar squad to bust the two rogue Jesuits out of jail, he’d be ok. But anything short of that represents “failure to protect”.

      3. I asked a question. You didn’t answer it. I don’t really feel obligated to submit any schemas.

      4. They removed the protection of the frock themselves.

        Their protection was being Jesuit. When they disobeyed him, they broke the vow of being a Jesuit and ceased to be Jesuit (by definition a Jesuit obeys).

        Bergoglio merely demanded that they do not pass off as being something they were no longer (i.e. not commit fraud).

    3. Or is this just a long way of saying he is “icky”?

      This is a two-fer for Cosmos.

      They get their ritualized religion hate going and score points with their proglodyte friends for linking the pope with right wing dictators.

      1. Conversely, all the Yokeltarians get to score points with their proglodyte friends by cheering government opression as long as it’s confined to brutalizing “hippies”.

        1. Nah,

          The Yokels try to score points with the progs by pointing out that they were on the side of the third world dictator in the Falklands war.

          But they lose because pro commie trumps reflexive anti americanism in the proglodyte values hierarchy.

    4. I guess “habemas papam” means “let the character assassinations begin.

  2. Pope Milton Friedman?

    1. I like it!

  3. “Bergoglio withdrew his order’s protection of the two men after they refused to quit visiting the slums, which ultimately paved the way for their capture.”

    Sound like two priests were antagonizing the junta, and rather than risk his ability to protect the rest of the order, Bergoglio warned the priests ahead of time that he wouldn’t be able to protect them anymore–and they refused to stop kicking the bull in the balls.*

    Maybe he’s guilty of collaboration in some other way–but that doesn’t look like collaboration to me.

    *The world needs more people willing to kick the bulls in the balls, but if the bulls turn around give us the horns, I don’t see why that would be Bergoglio’s fault.

    1. ya. That is how I read it too.

    2. So, no absolute concept of right vs wrong, just situational ethics. Got it.

      1. Re: Tonio,

        NAP establishes that there’s no ethical or moral crime when you REFUSE to do something. In this case, refusing to grant protection to a pair of miscreants is NOT the same as having them arrested or tortured.

        Unless you do NOT subscribe to NAP but to nosey do-goodism, then your objections are misplaced.

        1. OM,
          I’m gonna get picky. Yes, there are no crimes of omission, but:
          “Bergoglio withdrew his order’s protection”
          Sound like commission to me.

          1. I don’t get it. What act did he commit?

            1. Do you see “withdrew”? That took action, not simple inactivity.

              1. So “firing” someone would also be an action? Ceasing to do do something for someone (employing them, protecting them) counts as an affirmative action in violation of the NAP?

                1. darius404| 3.13.13 @ 8:51PM |#
                  “So “firing” someone would also be an action?”
                  If you ever fired someone, you would certainly know it is an “action”.
                  Care to (try to explain) how firing someone is an ommission?

                  1. Which violates the NAP HOW? Oh wait, it doesn’t.

              2. Re: Sevo,

                Do you see “withdrew”? That took action

                Yes, Sev, but you’re missing the point: Is the action moral, according to NAP, or is it not moral? Refusing to provide his protection is totally, 100% an action – a decision – but that protection was not the Jesuit priests’ to demand. In other words: They were certainly NOT entitled to it.

                If withdrawing the protection is NOT initiation of force, then Bergoglio was not committing an immoral or unethical act, unless you have information that the two Jesuit priests had a contract or agreement with Bergoglio by which he was obligated to offer protection to the two.

                1. …”but that protection was not the Jesuit priests’ to demand. In other words: They were certainly NOT entitled to it.”

                  I’ll admit to being less than thoroughly conversant in the matter, but….
                  It seems that protection *was* and entitlement of the order in Venezuela, and it seems that Frank took the action to rescind that protection in the case of these people.
                  So, unless I’m mistaken, he blew it.

                  1. Except that OM’s argument is about whether he violated the NAP, which he clearly didn’t.

                  2. How many divisions did Frank have?

            2. None, it was the priests who committed a an act of disobedience, which by definition excludes them from being Jesuits.

              In other words, they quit the job but wanted to keep the perks.

      2. Here’s Catholic Morality 101. The Morality of Human Acts is to be judged by three dimensions: the object (what is being done?), the intent (why am I doing it?) and the circumstances.

        “Absolute morality,” then, is either a call for uni-dimensional ethics (only looking at the object) or would appear to be a category error.

        1. Sorry. “absolute right and wrong.”

          1. Whatever the Sugarfreeing equivalent of quoting is, I just did it. “absolute concept of right vs wrong”

      3. “So, no absolute concept of right vs wrong, just situational ethics. Got it.”

        Looks like he warned a couple of guys that he wouldn’t be able to protect them if they kept doing what they were doing.

        And sure enough, he couldn’t.

        Show me the absolute wrong.

        P.S. If there’s anything situational about this, it’s people completely ignoring Marxist Liberation Theology, what it was, and what it was in context of what was happening at the time in places like Argentina.

      4. “So, no absolute concept of right vs wrong”

        Let’s remember this conversation begins with a story about how the new pope was somehow “complicit” with the former junta because he existed and was not martyred during the time they were in power.

        By the way, Tonio, do you live in a neighborhood that also includes pedophiles? Interesting…

      5. No. They were kicked out of the Jesuits because they disobeyed an direct order – Jesuits have a vow of blind obedience. They cannot be Jesuits have not obey orders.

        That the frock was protecting them was unfortunate for them, but we have to remember that Jesuits in the 70’s kept gun caches for communist guerrillas “to serve the poor”.

        These two decided to play with the big boys.

    3. “rather than risk his ability to protect the rest of the order, Bergoglio warned the priests ahead of time that he wouldn’t be able to protect them anymore”

      I’m seeing three assertions here, but no evidence. Got any?

      1. That was my read on the given evidence.

        “Bergoglio withdrew his order’s protection of the two men after they refused to quit visiting the slums, which ultimately paved the way for their capture.”

        This seems to have been what they meant when they called him a “collaborator”. That doesn’t look like collaboration to me. It may not be the most honorable thing in the world, but I’m not convinced that’s collaboration.

        Giving the junta a list of Marxists and Marxist Jesuit priests, that would be collaboration. Lots of people couldn’t or didn’t stand up the junta. That doesn’t make them freedom fighters, but it doesn’t necessarily make them collaborators either.

        1. OK, but what I saw was:
          1) “Rather than risk his ability”: The assumption is there was a threat that his ability would be at risk. I haven’t seen such.
          2) “Bergoglio warned the priests ahead of time”: Didn’t see where there was prior warning.
          3) “that he wouldn’t be able to protect them anymore”: Haven'[t seen evidence of that.

          1. If the above sentence is the only allegation of wrong doing, I think mere plausibility of non-wrongess is good enough. If somebody with more information wants to actually allege he did something wrong, thats fine. Bring it. But until then, I’m comfortable assuming it’s pro-commie sour grapes.

            1. There’s definitely a fave Marxist spin that goes something like…

              “If you don’t support us in our Marxist objectives, then you’re a collaborator.”

              …and that just ain’t so.

          2. “Rather than risk his ability”

            The dictators of the time were especially concerned about communists–the military junta in Argentina maybe even more so than other countries like Chile. They were disappearing all sorts of people who expressed any leftist sympathy in public whatsoever.

            Meanwhile, Liberation Theology, which was essentially a re-branded Marxism with a Christian twist, was gaining within the leadership of the Catholic church throughout Latin America.

            In other countries, various dictators really did become violent enemies of various church leaders…and the dictators made targets of the church leaders.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?scar_Romero #Assassination

            If he had let the Jesuits in Argentina become the explicit enemies of the junta, then the junta almost certainly would have come after them–I don’t think I’m going out on a limb there.

            It looks like he made a decision not to become part of the carnage, and if his subordinates refused to stop antagonizing the junta–after he told them they were doing so without his protection–then they knew what they were doing.

            I don’t think I blame him for what happened to those priests in that situation (without more facts). I think I blame the junta.

          3. 2) “Bergoglio warned the priests ahead of time”: Didn’t see where there was prior warning.

            It says, “Bergoglio withdrew his order’s protection of the two men after they refused to quit visiting the slums.”

            I read that as him saying, “um…if you keep doing what you’re doing, you’re doing it without my protection.”

            And if they kept doing it–after he warned them that they were on their own–then they shouldn’t have been too surprised to find out that they were on their own.

    4. “Ken Shultz| 3.13.13 @ 7:28PM |#
      “Bergoglio withdrew his order’s protection…”

      BTW, my ‘investment’ here is contempt for god-talkers in general. Whether Frank or Sam get anointed chief sky-daddy contact really isn’t, well, much of anything.

      1. I was brought up in bible-thumping universe (whose orbit I ultimately escaped), in which angels were as real as you or I am, and the Pope was the essence of everything evil.

        My interest, as always, is in giving people an honest assessment. If we let ’em get away with calling anybody they don’t like collaborators, what will we do when we need to denounce the real ones?

        And in this case, the people who are hollering collaborator? Seem to be genuine bona fide Marxists–who really are the essence of everything evil.

  4. Howzabout Pope Frank I? (More alpha than Francis)

    1. Pope Frank Gorshin?

    2. Pope “Frank by name, frank by nature”?

    3. Pope Frank, Incense, and Mirth

      Pot smokin’, happy, Fat Buddha Pope for the win!

    4. Pope All-Beef Frank is quite manly.

      1. Perfectly Frank!

  5. “relates to the abduction of two Jesuits whom the military government secretly jailed for their work in poor neighborhoods.”

    Seriously, knowing the Jesuits, who really believes that they were in poor neighborhoods hearing confessions or something? What kind of “work” were they doing in these neighborhoods? Some anti-government activity or agitation would be my guess.

    Now, that SHOULDN’T be illegal, but in a country run by a military junta, it almost certainly would be.

    1. This isn’t calling them on doing illegal things, oh transparently trolling n00b, it’s about holding them to their own internal standards of ethics which includes a tradition of martyrdom in the face of oppresive government.

      1. Re: Tonio,

        holding them to their own internal standards of ethics which includes a tradition of martyrdom in the face of oppressive government.

        There are no such doctrinal standards. It is one thing to die for your faith, quite another to let yourself be tortured or killed for being an ideological fool.

        1. The article said the two hooky-playing Jesuits ended up in the junta’s prisons for five months. At least one of them stayed around to give interviews to a sympathetic author.

          It would have been one thing if Francis sent these Jesuits on a mission where they got imprisoned – which they would have been bound to do despite the risk, but at least you could say he had a responsibility to stand up for his people.

          But in this situation, he gave them an order and said he wouldn’t protect them if they disobeyed. The situation wouldn’t have arisen if they’d followed their vows of obedience.

  6. Bergoglio’s career success coincided with the bloody 1976-1983 military dictatorship, during which up to 30,000 suspected leftists were kidnapped and killed

    And the problem with that is….?

    1. Are you blind??? My middle and high school years coincided with the bloody Vietnam war. Therefore, I must be a dirty, commie slope.

    2. Ha, ha. This isn’t town hall or red state, that partisan BS don’t fly here. Sure, nobody likes leftists here, but even dirty commie bastards have rights.

      1. tell that to the junta. Those people are usually not savory characters.

      2. Does partison BS include licking the testicles of every commie piece of shit who sticks his finger in the eye of a right wing junta and gets kicked in the nuts in return? Most likely these Jesuits were playing marxist revolutionaries (this is the period when that was popular) and got caught. You want to criticize the junta, fine. This story is guilt by association and trial by innuendo. It is part of the stream of left wing bullshit that pollutes an otherwise good website.

  7. Some guy actually tried to file a criminal complaint on this, which by coincidence was in 2005 when he was being considered for Pope the last time. The complaint didn’t go anywhere – almost as if it were politically motivated.

    Without knowing the details, I understand Bergoglio was the boss Jesuit in Argentina. If one of his people didn’t like his commands, they could either (a) get the command overturned by higher authority (the head of the order or the Pope) or (b) obey the command. I’m guessing these two guys did neither. While effectively playing hooky, they got into trouble, just as Bergoglio warned they would.

    If there’s one thing everyone knows about Jesuits, it’s that they’re solemnly pledged to obey their superiors. It seems these guys disobeyed a direct order, after being warned that if they did so Bergoglio wouldn’t protect them. It doesn’t take a lot of casuistry to see that it’s wrong for a Jesuit to disobey the boss’s commands and run into a dangerous situation after being warned the boss wouldn’t cover for them.

    1. But this case is going to be catnip for the hippies and liberal boomers in and out of the Church, so be prepared to hear about this *a lot.*

    2. I’ve never heard it gotten the impression Jesuits are particularly obedient. In fact, they seem prone to be the rogues of the Catholic orders. At my Jesuit HS, we had memorial prayer services for murdered liberation theologist priests, which probably conflicts with the official Jesuit stance on liberation theology. The very existence and prevalence of liberation theology indicates a propensity towards disobedience.

      1. “At my Jesuit HS, we had memorial prayer services for murdered liberation theologist priests,”

        I hope you walked out.

        1. Why? Disagreement with their political views certainly doesn’t mean I think they should have been killed for them. If anything, it fed my transition towards libertarianism.

      2. Hell one Jesuit priest encouraged my explorations outside Catholicism when I realized the church was full of shit.

      3. I don’t know that particular situation, but I doubt their vow of obedience would allow them to violate a direct order of their superior, if there was one.

        1. And I don’t know whether their superior actually forbade or encouraged their behavior.

          1. PS – I’m not denying the disobedience, simply suggesting that disobedience would violate their vows.

    3. “If there’s one thing everyone knows about Jesuits, it’s that they’re solemnly pledged to obey their superiors”

      True. And Spain kicked them out of their colonies in the New World in 1767.

  8. I think it’s important to note that the Argentine junta wasn’t particularly stable, and if the church had aggressively confronted it, they may have been able to tip the power balance against it.

    So it’s not like the Hitler case, where the church’s other choice was annihilation.

    1. “If” and “may”?

      If the Church actively confronted the Peronists, could they tip the balance of power?

    2. “wasn’t particularly stable” according to who? The lefty book author whom this story quotes in it’s character assassination without evidence?

      Where would you rather live, Chile after Pinochet or Cuba? Liberation theologists would all pick Cuba clones (Sandinistas, etc.). Fuck them.

  9. Too late for the PM links but here we learn about Warty’s Canadian heritage.

    1. You piqued my interest and then SF’d the link.

    2. The animals’ phallus-shaped anatomy consisted of a head, or “muscular proboscis”, in front of a short “collar” and ended with “a posterior kind of long wormy tail which has gill slits”, Dr Cameron explained. The body ended in a bulbous structure which may have helped it anchor to the sea bed.

      Sounds about right.

  10. Do they vet these motherfuckers at all before giving them control of the most powerful organization on the planet?

    1. If this bogus controversy is the worst thing that comes out, then he would seem to be OK.

      If his love-child or drug-dealer comes out of the woodwork with photographs, call me, otherwise meh.

      1. So, let me get this straight:

        You’d be more personally outraged at the thought that I had sex with a woman or smoked a joint than you would be if you found out that when the secret police called me to ask if it was OK for them to arrest some guys who worked for me, I said, “Sure! Fuck those guys up!”

        1. No, you didn’t get it straight.

        2. Fluffy, you just illustrated what is wrong with this story. You took the non-evidence and spun it into the cardinal giving the thumbs up for torture.

          And let me be clear: if you have sex with Che Guevara or smoke a joint with the Sandinistas, I hope the secret police fuck you up.

    2. Do they vet these motherfuckers at all before giving them control of the most powerful organization on the planet?

      Of course they vet them, you should see the guys that don’t make the cut.

    3. Shmurphy| 3.13.13 @ 8:54PM |#
      “Do they vet these motherfuckers at all before giving them control of the most powerful organization on the planet?”

      Uh, they may fancy themselves as “powerful”, but division, they ain’t got.
      Nor nukes.
      They’re left-over fantasists who have stolen enough to keep themselves in fancy clothes.

      1. Correction:
        “Divisions, they ain’t got”

    4. “most powerful organization on the planet”

      How many divisions does the Pope have?
      It might be the oldest continuous institution.
      It might be the most ubiquitous and far ranging organization in the world.
      But “most powerful”? Reading too much Dan Brown novels, I think.

      1. It’s true – their albino assassin-monks are all trained drone pilots.

        And they totally control Wall Street. Whoops, wrong stereotype.

        1. “And they totally control Wall Street. Whoops, wrong stereotype.”
          Damn Jooooze!

  11. So, he didn’t fuck any kids, or cover up other priests kid-fucking?

    Then he’s good to go.

  12. This is the worst chat room ever!

    1. Naah. There’s plenty worse. Check with Sydney below; you’ll be fulfilled!

  13. my friend’s aunt makes $75/hr on the internet. She has been unemployed for nine months but last month her pay was $21010 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site
    http://jump30.com

    1. Wait, is she unemployed or working?

      1. She’s a cam whore. Not sure if you could call that work or not…

        -jcr

  14. Heh. I remember wondering if the new Pope would be attacked for his role during the 1970s junta.

    Of course according to Rockwell and Rothbard the junta were good guys since they invaded the Falklands and were opposed by Reagan and Thatcher for doing so.

    1. Link?

      1. http://mises.org/journals/lf/1982/1982_05.pdf

        Not sure what is up with the Rothbardians. Sometimes they are “intervention is bad and both sides suck” and at other times they are “anyone who opposes the US can’t be all that bad.”

        1. A British Response:
          http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-3-2-5.pdf

          Odd that two months later Rothbard wrote this:

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/rot…..ard95.html

          1. Rothbard mentions Gareth Porter’s apologia for Pol Pot. He works for antiwar.com now and even wrote an article attacking the US for supporting Pol Pot.

          2. Wow, those Brits kicked Rothbard’s ass! Ayn Rand kicked his ass a few times before that (then she got bored with him), but it’s nice to see that even a non-genius can take out a stupid, left wing, Rothbardian argument and show it for the drivel it is.

        2. Ya, i think the reflexive anti americanism gets silly sometimes. And I like him in general.

          Thanks for links though. They look interesting I’m going to read them tommorow when I’m all the way awake.

    2. I cannot let this opportunity pass: Fuck Lew Rockwell.

      I feel more libertarian every time I say that.

    3. Re: Gladstone,

      Of course according to Rockwell and Rothbard the junta were good guys since they invaded the Falklands and were opposed by Reagan and Thatcher for doing so.

      I read the article and I failed to find one instance where Rothbard says, unequivocally, that the Argentinian military junta were all “good guys”. What the article does is place the entire conflict in historical perspective as counterpoint to the false dichotomy of “US/Brits Good / Them Bad” that was being espoused by the US media and the White House at that time.

      1. ya, he doesn’t really say the junta are the “good guys”. But he does appear to be calling Anglo-American side as the definite “bad guys”. And he seems to dismiss the fact that the kelpers would rather remain a British territory, which as much as like Rothbard, I just cant defend. If all the governments involved are evil just because they are governments, then fine I can accept that, but that should really be the end of the commentary. But if governments have any right to exist at all, then surely protecting borders of a territory where the population wants the protection is one of the legit duties.

  15. Remember in Black Hawk Down, when the two snipers volunteered to secure the second crash site? The general gave them permission, but told them he couldn’t guarantee reinforcements. They went in anyway and got killed. This Argentine Jesuit thingy is kinda sorta like that. Maybe. Not really.

    1. Nah, it’s closer to Clear and Present Danger.

      1. I’d vote for The Mission (with Robert DeNiro)

        1. I was thinking the Church scene in “Above the Law”.

  16. Somebody writing something in a book is not evidence. I have no real skin in this game either way but I don’t like to condemn anyone on just hearsay. At least not without hearing the whole story from all sides.

  17. Refusing to provide his protection is totally, 100% an action – a decision – but that protection was not the Jesuit priests’ to demand. In other words: They were certainly NOT entitled to it.

    Dude, I take an extreme, quasi-Objectivist view of the distinction between commission and omission, but this is ridiculous.

    By the standard you’re promulgating here, if the President of the United States found out that the North Koreans had captured 2 GI’s, and the North Koreans called him and said, “Hey, Mr. President, we caught two of your boys here. If you say they’re under your protection, we’ll give them back, but if you say you withdraw your protection, we”re going to fuck these motherfuckers up GOOD!” and the President said, “Fuck those guys, they’re not entitled to my protection! I’ve got the NAP on my side here, bitch!” you’d be totally square with that?

    1. Yes, Fluffy, your quasi-objectivist view is not without merit. Problem: there isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that the cardinal did this. He could have simply warned them that if they continue acting like revolutionaries while wearing their priest collars, they might step in it big time. The standards for “collaboration” here are completely left wing. And by left wing I mean bullshit.

  18. At least we can stop talking about how Pope Benedict was a member of the Hitler Youth.

  19. I’m not Catholic, and don’t care who they have for a pope, but something interesting about the blurb:

    Withdrew his order’s protection because they continued to visit the slums?

    Were arrested for their work with the poor?

    Seems rather odd, even for a fascist police state. There might be something there, but I don’t think the quoted blurb is reliable for assessing that.

  20. First I think the readers should know who are the Jesuits, for liberals (in our sense) have a huge intellectual debt to them – see the scholastics and Juan de Mariana (his theory of inflation, theory of regicide) in particular. Readers should also watch “The Mission” with Robert DeNiro to understand Jesuits better. These aren’t fools, and neither is Bergoglio. They also made a vow to help the poor and of blind obedience to their superior (their free choice to do so). On account of their vow to be and to serve the poor, many Jesuits were seduced by socialism of a more violent persuasion (see Liberation Theology).

    About the allegations against Bergoglio:

    There are two source of allegations, from the pair of fellow Jesuits, and another from an author, Verbitsky.

    The allegations against him from the priests are the strongest, but amount to little more than that he didn’t actively protect them against the Junta by ordering them out of the Jesuits (their argument was that their collar protected them against the military). However, Bergoglio told them to stop what they were doing and to leave the country, an order they disobeyed – in direct violation of the vow these priests freely made to the Jesuit order (blind obedience). They ceased to be Jesuits when they disobeyed him yet wanted to keep the collar to shield themselves.

  21. The second, more extensive allegations against him are by Verbitsky. In a country, like my parent’s, where slander is a sport, we must ask ourselves “who is Verbitsky, and what is his angle?”. Verbitsky is, as he himself admits, a former Montonero. The Montoneros were Argentine’s the largest and more popular among the commie guerrillas who kidnapped, murdered innocent civilians and set bombs for a decade. It was to combat these militants that the Junta came along. Today he is the mouthpiece of the Kirchner government, part of the Chavez block in Latin America. Bergolgio was a pain in the ass to the Kirchner’s because he highlighted the corruption in the government.
    Now, a former terrorist, admitted gunman, and lackey for a very corrupt government, accuses Bergoglio, (a man who takes the bus) of having offered his private island to hide prisoners for the navy? A navy that had no qualms of drowning its prisoners?

    bit rich, ain’t it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.