Archbishop Aguer: Catholics need Francis to act like the pope, not a leftist demagogue

(LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis has repeatedly announced that he intends to visit Argentina. But he will not do it. He knows it would not go very well for him. So now he is descending into the dirty arena of political debates with an unusual speech of fury against the libertarian government of President Javier 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 Fernández, the hypocrite who boasted about being a feminist and beat his wife. The main source of Francis’ speech, as on other occasions, has been the news he receives from his friend Juan Grabois.

The Pope’s address messed with history. He repudiated the work of General Julio Argentino Roca, to whom he attributed the slaughter of indigenous people in his Expedition of the Desert. What he did not mention were the massacres and raids of indigenous people who almost made it to the gates of Buenos Aires, stealing women and sowing terror along the way. I am no fan of Roca, but we must recognize that Argentina would not exist and Patagonia would be Chilean if not for his two terms as president. What the Pope should have criticized was the religious policy of Roca, a Freemason who kept the country disconnected from the Holy See for 16 years.

The papal critique of the Argentine government is harsh on its new anti-picketing protocol – that is, he sides with the piqueteros, who are frustrating people by blocking streets and causing numerous inconveniences. “They paid for pepper spray instead of social justice,” he said, vindicating the “struggle” of social movements, with Grabois nearby. He also mentioned a case of bribes, but he did not specify which administration.

Journalist Luciano Román described the papal speech as “an excessively earthy message which could be interpreted as far removed from some of the balances, complexities, and nuances that usually characterize the words of great religious leaders and others of the sort.” It was based on biased and partial information, it overlooked the complex implications for the average citizen of a certain anarchy in the streets, and it encouraged the “struggle” of social movements. It dramatized the use of pepper spray by security forces without alluding to the provocations and outrages, e.g., stone-throwing attacks, suffered by institutions such as Congress, nor to the activist-caused injuries of humble public servants, i.e., police officers and gendarmes. Neither did it take into account the burning of public property and the destruction of vehicles and businesses during some violent protests.

It is clear that the Pontiff’s closeness with Grabois is not simply a personal bond, but a relationship nourished by synchrony. The Pope’s politicized endorsement of social organizations did not call for transparency and respect for the law. He deliberately overlooked 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 kind of justification and endorsement.

What Argentine Catholics need is for Francis to act like the pope, to take care of the Catholic religion, and to guide the faithful to grow in the faith, not to wander into the confusing territory of political discussion. “Buy social justice instead of pepper spray” – how unusual is this disturbing descent. He has not even said a word about the situation in Venezuela, where a dictatorship is persecuting the opposition and social justice is nonexistent. The pepper spray issue was stirred up because of a little girl who suffered the effects after taking part in a protest camp led by her mother, an irresponsible militant.

With his speech against the government, the Pope exposed himself to reasonable criticisms that have been emerging. Miguel Ángel Pichetto, head of the “Federal Innovation” block in the Chamber of Deputies, 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 “previously, pontifical declarations were more of a pastoral nature, never directly addressed to local politics. Now there is a new development. The Pope cannot make these kinds of declarations without his word becoming more fragile.”

Francis’ speech was a new expression of papal progressivism: always moving forward, just like Peronism and its never-achieved quest for social justice. The Pope pitted social justice against 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.

+ Héctor Aguer
Archbishop Emeritus of La Plata

Buenos Aires
Wednesday, September 25, 2024