While living, few took Pope Francis for a moral authority whose opinions about earthly issues deserved more respect than those of common mortals, but not well died, the political world, accompanied by many media that had fulminated him because, in his opinion, he did not do enough to punish the priests, bishops and even Catholic archbishops accused of pedophilia, he chose to treat him as a hero. An imperishable legacy.
Why was this novel consensus that, apparently, share not only pious Catholics of the type that have always revered the Holy Father of the day but also characters of religious convictions strikingly heterodoxas, such as Javier Milei and Donald Trump, in addition to a multitude of agnostics and atheists? Allegedly, they concluded that they should imply that they also venerate the ideals that so many attributed to the newly deceased pontiff even when they know that it would not be entirely easy to put them into practice in this valley of tears.
It is that Bergoglio managed to become a spokesman for many causes that are fashionable in the most influential progressive circles, although, to save conflicts with traditionalists, he assumed an ambiguous position before those linked to sexual variants. However, the one who, with few exceptions, his opinions coincided with those of international progress exposed it to accusations of “goodism”, of committing to causes considered good but unrealizable with the purpose of drawing attention to the ethical superiority itself and comparing it with the despicable egoism of those who oppose them. This is something that, for reasons that could be described as professionals, tend to do almost all politicians, many intellectuals and clergy.
As happened with Cristina Kirchner more than a decade earlier, Milei reconciled with “the evil one” for clearly political reasons; Both knew that it would not be of interest to continue polemizing with a compatriot, owner of the powerful papal megaphone, who would be able to harm them. Something similar will have happened with Trump, a great pagan who, despite his often scandalous behavior, has the fervent support of many Catholics, other Christians and even Muslims who feel threatened by the Woke militancy that, among other things, intends to make trizión of sexual customs that date back to the neolithic age.
The funerals of the Pope gave all the planet’s politicians an opportunity to participate in a mass meeting; Upon learning that the best known would be in Rome, others hurried to accompany them so as not to be out of the photos. Among the attendees was the Ukrainian Volodimir Zelensky, the only president whose arrival was received with applause by those who filled the Plaza de San Pedro, which will have angered Trump that, like the other presidents, prime ministers and monarch insulted rudely in the White House. According to Zelensky, it was “a very symbolic meeting that could become historical if we reach common results.” Post Mortem may have helped to reconcile two people with whom he did not have much in common.
What is “the legacy” that so many attribute to Jorge Bergoglio? Many speak of “the option for the poor”, but it happens that, even if only for electoral reasons, almost all politicians in the world are claimed to help those who have less, although, the same as the Argentine Pope, the most eloquent in that sense usually disregard the only socioeconomic systems that have managed to improve their situation and express their support for others that, such as those rehearsed here, have served to aggravate it.
Bergoglio’s attachment to personal austerity has also been exalted, that he has only had cents in his bank account and that he has not charged his official salary as head of the Vatican State. Moreover, it is reported that he was such a simple and honest man that his family members could not travel to Rome until a kind businessman gave them the money they needed. It goes without saying that they will not inherit anything except memories of their famous relative.
Before he died, the Pope argued with Vice President JD Vance about charity. According to the American, the Church teaches that charity has to begin at home by then expanding until reaching neighbors, compatriots and, finally, to the other members of the human family. Good that, virtually all people give why it is normal to act like this, but upon learning of what Vance said, Bergoglio replied that it is not about “concentric circles” because solidarity must be much more comprehensive. Although many gave a discounted that Bergoglio had ridiculed the insolent vice president, some Catholics who specialize in doctrinal issues did not feel convinced. Those familiar with the evolution of papal thought remind us that, years before, the Pope had explicitly pronounced in favor of a concept identical to that claimed by Vance, one that, for more signs, had the approval of Santo Tomás de Aquinas.
Now, for Recent that may seem an exchange of opinions between Catholics around concepts such as “Ordo Amoris” or “Ordo Caritatis”, the one starring Bergoglio and Vance has geopolitical implications that are very important. On the one hand, the one who was Pope, are convinced that we must subordinate absolutely everything to the alleged interests of humanity as a whole without discriminating between the different races, classes, religious sects and nations; On the other, that of the writer turned into an American politician, are those who believe that it is perfectly natural to give priority to the group to which one belongs.
After a prolonged period that was dominated intellectually by the persuaded that national states should give rise to international institutions headed by the UN, an alliance that, in addition to progressives, included billionaires such as those that every year met in the picturesque Swiss town of Davos, the world is entering a very different one. To the disgust of many who supposed that, to prevent a past from full of atrocious conflicts that culminated with World War II, it would be necessary to erase the national borders, globalism is beating in retreat. They are attacking nationalists “of the extreme right” alarmed by the very negative impact that they have already had the unrestricted immigration and the efforts of European governments to eliminate suddenly the use of fossil fuel For millions of men and women.
The conflict between those who put the good of all members of our species to that of the group of their own is new. In the mid -nineteenth century, in his novel “The desolate house” Charles Dickens satirized those who, like Mrs. Jellyby, obsessed with the well -being of children from remote places in Africa but allowed them to fall into ruin who depended directly on them. In the opinion of more and more American and Europeans, it is what globalists such as Bergoglio have been doing.
Although many expect that taxes to Pope contribute to strengthening the globalist ideology, most likely they weaken it by making it think that it is an aspiration perhaps but nothing realistic of the class that usually attracts those who are not forced to worry about annoying details. After all, however austere that are the princes of the Church, they will not have to suffer material deprivations.
Far from wanting to defend Western civilization against those resolved to see it replaced by another, Bergoglio sympathized with those who believed were innocent victims of European imperialism and American liberal capitalism. For the Pope, the problems caused by the will of dozens of millions of people to migrate from violent countries, and usually Paupérimos, to Europe and North America were almost completely due to the cruel meanness of the native populations of rich nations. It seemed indifferent to the destiny that would wait for Catholicism and other Christian confessions if Western countries were filled with people with radically different customs and beliefs, something that will surely happen unless their governments manage to stop migratory currents very soon that continue to gain strength.
Bergoglio liked to affirm that a bridge is better than a wall, as if the location of such constructions lacking importance. However, in the United States the majority wants more walls because it supports Trump’s hard immigration policy. The same is likely to happen in Europe where the popular pressure is intensifying so that governments close to lime and sing many bridges that remain open.
