Pope Francis has repeatedly announced that his intention is to visit Argentina; but he will not do so: he knows that he would not do very well here. So, now, he descends to the dirty field of political debates with an unusual speech, of fury, against the libertarian government of President Milei. He never made the slightest allusion to Cristina Kirchner's governments, which plunged the country into poverty and destitution. Neither did he react to the worst government in history: that of the useless and abusive Alberto Fernandez, the hypocrite who boasted of being a feminist and beat his wife. The main source of Francis' speech has been, as other times, the news reached by his friend Juan Grabois.
The papal intervention has messed with history: he has repudiated the work of General Julio Argentino Roca, to whom he attributed the slaughter of indigenous people in his Expedition to the Desert; what he has not mentioned are the massacres and the attacks of indigenous people, who arrived almost at the gates of Buenos Aires, and kidnapped women, sowing terror. I am not a Roca fan, but we must recognize that, without that double Presidency of Julio Argentino Roca, Argentina would not exist and Patagonia would be Chilean. What the Pope should have criticized was the religious policy of the Freemason Roca, who kept the country disconnected from the Holy See for 16 years.
The papal critique of the Argentine government is harsh on the anti-picketing protocol; that is, he sides with the piqueteros, who are making people fed up by blocking avenues and causing innumerable inconveniences. “They purchase pepper spray instead of social justice,” he said in an act together with Grabois, and vindicated ‘the struggle’ of the social movements. He also mentioned a case of bribes, but did not specify which administration. The journalist Luciano Román described the papal speech as “an excessively earthy message, which could even be interpreted as far from some balances, complexities, and nuances that usually characterize the words of great religious leaders and other similar ones.” It was based on biased and partial information; it overlooked the complex implications for the common citizen of a sort of anarchy in the streets, and encouraged “the struggle” of social movements. It makes a drama of the use of pepper spray by the security forces, without alluding to the provocations and outrages suffered by institutions such as the national Congress, with stone-throwing attacks, nor to the injuries caused by activists to humble civil servants, such as policemen or gendarmes. Nor did it take into account the burning of public property, and even the destruction of vehicles and businesses in some violent protests.
It is evident that the closeness of the Pontiff with Grabois is not simply a personal bond, but a relationship nourished by coincidences. The Pope's politicization in endorsing social organizations does not call for transparency and respect for the law. He deliberately overlooks the investigations and denunciations that showed how numerous piquetero leaders took advantage of the administration of social plans for their own benefit. The Pope's words against the government will surely be used by these “managers of poverty” as a sort of justification and endorsement.
What Argentine Catholics need is for Francis to act as Pope, to take care of the Catholic religion, and to guide the faithful to grow in the Faith, not to get into the confusing territory of political discussion. “Buy social justice instead of pepper spray”: this this disturbing comment is quite peculiar, when he has not said a word about the situation in Venezuela, where a dictatorship persecuting the opposition rules, and social justice is non-existent. The pepper spray issue was stirred up because of a little girl who suffered the effects, because she participated in an encampment led by her mother, an irresponsible militant.
The Pope, with his speech against the government, exposes himself to the criticisms that are reasonably emerging. The head of the “Federal Innovation” block of Deputies, Miguel Ángel Pichetto, dismissed the Pope's criticisms, stating that “the agenda proposed from the Vatican is absurd and does incredible damage to Argentina.” This national deputy observed that “before, the pontifical manifestations were more of a pastoral nature, never directly addressed to local politics; now, then, there is a new fact. The Pope cannot make this type of manifestations, without his word becoming more fragile”
Francis' intervention against the Argentine government is a new expression of papal progressivism; always moving forward, as it happens with Peronism and its never achieved search for social justice. The Pope contraposes social justice and pepper spray: to repress the picket line, to prevent continuous protest and revolt would be to contradict the dynamism of the Gospel, which must always be reread. Thus, the Second Vatican Council would be a rereading of the Gospel according to the culture of modernity.
Therein lies the progressivism and Peronism that reign in Rome today. Francis is the president of Peronism, as we have already explained on other occasions.