Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was chosen as the new pope this week. But coverage often glossed over the most intense political controversies about him.
On NBC Nightly News (3/13/13), the network’s Vatican analyst George Weigel told viewers that Pope Francis was “a man of God… a man who is a great defender of democracy in a country where democracy is under real stress right now in Argentina.”
He went on:
He is a very, very warm gentleman. I spent an hour with him in Buenos Aires last May. I was touched by his intelligence, by his manifestly deep interior life, his spiritual life. Got a very clear-eyed view of the troubled politics of his own country.
It’s hard to know exactly what Weigel means by the “stress” and “troubled politics” in Argentina. The major political dispute Bergoglio was involved in was his fervent opposition to gay marriage, which he called a ”destructive attack on God’s plan.” Argentine democracy thought otherwise, and the senate passed a marriage equality law.
Weigel called him “a reformer his whole life,” saying, “I think the world is going to get to love this man very quickly.”
“Reformer his whole life” is a strange way to describe Bergoglio, given the intense controversy over his actions during the military junta that seized control of the country in the late 1970s. Thousands were killed, tortured and disappeared. According to his critics, Bergoglio–as head of the Jesuits in Argentina–failed to stand up to, or even conspired with, the brutal dictatorship.
A USA Today report (3/14/13) also touched lightly on that history, noting that Bergoglio was known for “tangling with the powerful leftists who have run Argentina for years.” The paper explained that he
never shared the political activism of some of his fellow Jesuits, especially during turbulent times in the ’70s. He fought fiercely against the left-leaning liberation theology movement that swept Latin America
As USA Today puts it, “He tried to repair the reputation of a church that lost many followers by failing to openly challenge Argentina’s former dictatorship.” The paper noted, “Under Bergoglio’s leadership, Argentina’s bishops issued a collective apology in October 2012 for the church’s failures to protect its flock. “
Little more is mentioned. This is striking, because much of the piece comes from an Associated Press report (3/13/13) by Brian Murphy and Michael Warren that thoroughly discussed the accusations against Bergoglio. Right after the preceding comment about the apology, the AP reporters summarized some of the criticism of Bergoglio, including accusations that he refused to support two priests who were kidnapped in 1976, and that he was “accused of turning his back on a family that lost five relatives to state terror”– a story that involves the theft of a baby.
Whatever the specifics, the role of the church was vital in supporting the dictatorship. As human rights attorney Myriam Bregman put it, “The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support.”
USA Today omitted this damning information, but did include this characterization from Bergoglio’s official biographer:
Bergoglio almost never granted media interviews, limiting himself to speeches from the pulpit, and was reluctant to contradict his critics, even when he knew their allegations against him were false, he said.
While Pope Francis may be inclined to avoid speaking about his critics, that’s no reason for media not to speak with them. For a critical take, you can check out Democracy Now!‘s March 14 broadcast.
Call it blowing smoke
In more ways than one
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on here, isn’t it?
Bergoglio will be the false face of humility and supposed advocacy for the poor, which the church will try to use to combat the political, economic and social changes it opposes, while also attempting to improve its image vis a vis the sexual abuse and corruption scandals.
The corpress will aid and abet them in those efforts, needless to say.
But why did DEMOCRACY NOW! begins yesterday’s program with a guest who parrots that PR?
Is it to appease “liberal” Catholics in the audience by appearing to offer “balance” to the revelations that followed in the next segments Peter alludes to?
I guess you’d have to ask Goodman and company.
Good luck with that.
Tell me how electing a Fascist is different from the Catholic Church’s usual practices; or how the MSM’s reporting the election of a Fascist as “a good thing” differs from their usual behavior either.
If there were justice in the real world, Hugo Chavez would come back from the dead and be installed as Pope instead. (Don’t hold your breath!)
Doug: Leuren Moret told me that Goodman is a sellout. It would be on the usual model: you offer he up as proof of “an opposition viewpoint” to be found on an MSM channel, so they can say they are “balanced”; but the funders of Goodman set strict limits on how much “truth” they’re willing to hear from her, and, knowing how her bread it buttered, she complies.
Wake me up when someone who SAYS THEY ARE A COMMUNIST (it being true, of course) is allowed to speak in the U.S. MSM. Otherwise, and until then, 100.000% of what is on radio or TV in this country is just propaganda and CRAP. I no longer own a radio or a TV and what a relief that is.
One other (possibly hopeful) thing: according to Nostradamus, THIS pope will be the LAST pope. On the slight chance that is true, I will be so grateful to see that happen and how it happens.
A nazi exits, a fascist comes in…
According to Adolfo Perez Esquival, “Bergoglio was no accomplice of the dictatorship. He can’t be accused of that.” But hey, why listen to a Nobel Prize winning Argentine human rights activist if it means passing up on a chance to smear the Catholic Church?
Why is it wrong for Democracy Now to air both sides of an issue? And why is reporting facts on the catholic church considered smearing? It seems to me that the smearing is done by the church itself. It’s clear that this new pope is like all the previous ones, just another vatican politician trying to put a good face on white/supremacy and imperialism.
Contrary to some charges by commentators on this thread, Goodman’s interview with an Argentine journalist was the best coverage of the Pope’s involvement with fascism so far.
ope’s involvement with Argentine fascism was on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now.
Arthur, I don’t know what the story is with DN!, but I do know that many of the stories told there are laden with contradictions.
They appear to adore corpress reporters with “exposés”, and while there may be useful intel extant, they neglect to challenge the guest’s take, and often don’t provide a contrasting view from another guest.
And you’re right about freezing out anyone beyond a restricted spectrum, or at least making sure there’s a “balancing” view. Witness the segment a while back with Glen Ford and Michael Eric Dyson.
They occasionally trot out Mumia Abu Jamal as their “pet radical” – no diss on him. Chomsky has some valuable insights, as well, but their appearances simply serve to highlight the paucity of radical analysis, for lack of a better term.
I think DN!’s part of a larger “alternative establishment media”, that, while doing some good work – the recent segment on using young people arrested on minor offenses as informants, placing them in grave danger, being a case in point – focus primarily on reformists that will never truly challenge the profit system.
And if FAIR is to be a true watchdog for all the media, it must critique those outlets as well as the corpress, don’t you think?
It won’t win them any friends, but that ain’t the point, is it?
I’m not holding my breath.
Arthur Nonymous can’t wait to see this pope exist at this the approaching end of the world. Can I come to your fallout shelter, I’d like to see that too?
IF this is true, then it is a sad day for the poor who have enough strikes against them without an advocate like that.
I have to say before I heard this I was happy to see a man who lived so plainly become the pope. But unless he tears down the ornate vatican which Jesus himself would have hated, the plain life is out for him now.
I think those of us on the side of social justice may have to be quite happy about Pope Francis. My feeling is that, possibly, the Pope’s butler may have revealed information that gave the upper hand to Liberation Theology proponents, who had to lay dormant since Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger declared fighting for social justice out of reach for Catholic priests. I suspect Benedict’s resignation might have been part of a deal that led to Francis’ election. A change of direction by the Vatican would put the largest organization in the world at work on behalf of extending rights and opportunities to people without money. It would also confuse the hell out of Paul Ryan, as well as Justices Stevens, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
I don’t think that media is soft on this pope. If anything, all I hear about is his war time “non-involvement” Accusations seem to be more about what he did not do rather than anything that he did wrong.