13
   

Do You Care About Pope Francis and the Argentinian Junta?

 
 
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 01:42 am
Related questions:

Are you Catholic?
Do you respect the Catholic Church?
Do you think the Pope is truly a spiritual leader?

I ask these questions because much is being made about Rev. Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the human rights violations perpetrated by the Military Junta in Argentina in the 70's. Charges range from indifference to complicity.

Eugene Robinson, in particular, wrote a column on the subject in today's Washington Post.

Putting aside whether or not any of the allegations are true, my reaction to the outrage and insistence on atonement expressed by folks like Robinson is that it just doesn't ring true.

If one doesn't have any use for the Catholic Church and less for the high and mighty position of Pope, what is the big deal?

It seems to me that the issue of whether or not Bergoglio is morally qualified to be the Pope is a matter for the people who consider him their spiritual leader.

I'm not suggesting that newspapers should not report on the facts associated with Bergoglio and the events in Agentina in the 70's, but expressions of outrage and demands for atonement from people who think the papacy is a bunch of poppycock seems worse than gratuitous.

I'm not a Catholic or a member of any other religion and the papacy is antithetical to my spiritual beliefs, but if Catholics are happy with Pope Francis, why should I care?

It's not as if he has any power over me...or Eugene Robinson.

OK, Church doctrine says the Pope is infallible, and if these allegations are true Bergoglio is clearly not, but again, so what? Does Eugene Robinson and others want Pope Francis to tell the world he's a hypocrite? Is that really so important to them?

I don't buy the outrage, and if it's actually sincere, I don't get it.

Maybe someone can explain it to me.


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 13 • Views: 2,313 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 12:18 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You don't think it's important to know whether or not the current pope colluded with a fascist regime in the murder of its own people?

Have you always been so very relaxed about fascists?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 02:36 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You know the faith I was raised in.
So, anyway, the media is just doing what a large constituency wants. That being that many Catholics, in my opinion, like to believe their faith, and its hierarchal table of organization is quite meaningful in a temporal way, whether or not it has a kingdom in heaven. So, keeping the change of leadership in the news, again in my opinion, panders to the Catholic population.

And, as you might have discerned already from prior postings, I believe that regardless of a large Catholic population in the U.S., I define the U.S. as "a great Protestant nation." And, again in my opinion, Protestants are basically the majority owners of the wealth of the country, and direct the country in its role in the world. Now that is not conspiratorial; just plain facts, based on who was here first, and accumulated the land and other wealth, starting in the 1600's. I begrudge them nothing, since I believe part of the Protestant mindset is fair play, which I am not so sure exists in other mindsets. Just my opinion.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 02:51 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
I believe part of the Protestant mindset is fair play, which I am not so sure exists in other mindsets. Just my opinion.


But there's something they don't have...

http://www.all-about-the-virgin-mary.com/images/our-lady-of-fatima.jpg
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 10:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I love to read Eugene Robinson, but I need some time to research all the news barreling out of Rome and everywhere else before I'm comfortable making comments regarding the new pope. I was raised catholic, attended catholic schools but it seems the non-catholic world is more interested than the Catholics. I need some time to digest all of this, because as ridiculous as it may sound, I do not know every Cardinal serving around the world. All t hope is the church didn't elevate the equivalent of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robinson to follow the apostle Peter as head of the very first Christian Faith.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 01:16 am
@contrex,
We Lutherans do - at least up in the cold north.
At least she gives a female touch to an otherwise men world up there in heaven.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 02:54 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

And, as you might have discerned already from prior postings, I believe that regardless of a large Catholic population in the U.S., I define the U.S. as "a great Protestant nation." And, again in my opinion, Protestants are basically the majority owners of the wealth of the country, and direct the country in its role in the world. Now that is not conspiratorial; just plain facts, based on who was here first, and accumulated the land and other wealth, starting in the 1600's. I begrudge them nothing, since I believe part of the Protestant mindset is fair play, which I am not so sure exists in other mindsets. Just my opinion.

I don't think that this Pope or any other has a lot to do with the USA. He is the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church and the sovereign of the State of the Vatican City.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Are you Catholic?
Do you respect the Catholic Church?
Do you think the Pope is truly a spiritual leader?
I'm a Catholic. I respect the Catholic Church as I respect any other religion. Since the Pope is just a couple of days in office, I don't have any resources to get an opinion about him being "truly being a spiritual leader". (But generally, Jesuits are.)
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 05:06 am
Are you Catholic?
No, I am a Lutheran, which means I am very close to the Catholics.

Do you respect the Catholic Church?
Yes, I do respect the important denominations including the Catholic Church.
Sects with guru like preachers I certainly do not respect

Do you think the Pope is truly a spiritual leader?
Do you mean this new Pope or popes in general
I would say popes and arch bishops are sometimes a truly spiritual leader and sometimes not.
Papa Ratzinger was a fantastic theologian, so I personally do not think he was a real spiritual leader for everybody.
I do not want to judge the new pope and the Argentinian Junta till their are more facts.
Interesting is that he is the first Jesuit to become a pope and he takes the name Franciscus. The Jesuits and Franciscians have not always got along well.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 09:40 am
Don't shoot the messenger. How will the corruption and murder by governments be reduced if not brought to the light of day?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 01:38 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

Foofie wrote:
I believe part of the Protestant mindset is fair play, which I am not so sure exists in other mindsets. Just my opinion.


But there's something they don't have...

http://www.all-about-the-virgin-mary.com/images/our-lady-of-fatima.jpg


I thought Protestants have a personal relationship with God (aka, Jesus)? In effect, an open door policy with the Lord. Now what can beat that? Asking Jesus' mother to ask her nice Jewish son for a favor (aka, intercession)?

Let's be real. The litmus test for a religion, in my opinion, is whether it can survive its original limited structure in time and place. So, when Jews got kicked out of Jerusalem by the Romans around 60 something AD, many Jews were not sure the religion could survive in the Diaspora. And, rabbinical Judaism was born (note Jesus was on the "cutting edge" of Judaism, being a rabbi). Similarly, could Christianity survice without the structure of the hierarchal church? And, Protestantism was born. So, read the bible (both texts); pray to Jesus; Salvation in effect didn't necessitate schlepping to church for Communion, even though the interpretation of a line in the New Testament requires it, and gave birth to the "power of the transubstantiation."

Plus, without Protestantism, who would have developed capitalism to its current complexity?
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Mar, 2013 01:44 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
...Plus, without Protestantism, who would have developed capitalism to its current complexity?


You talk about religion the way a gynaecologist might talk about sex (i.e. in a dessicated, almost autistic way).
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 01:15 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

Foofie wrote:
...Plus, without Protestantism, who would have developed capitalism to its current complexity?


You talk about religion the way a gynaecologist might talk about sex (i.e. in a dessicated, almost autistic way).



And here I thought I was impressing you with my intellectual thoughts?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 02:03 pm
@Foofie,


You can always dream.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2013 02:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, as always, uses deception and avoidance.

Quote:
Kissinger approved Argentinian 'dirty war'
Declassified US files expose 1970s backing for junta

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles

The Guardian, Saturday 6 December 2003 02.20 GMT

Henry Kissinger gave his approval to the "dirty war" in Argentina in the 1970s in which up to 30,000 people were killed, according to newly declassified US state department documents.
Mr Kissinger, who was America's secretary of state, is shown to have urged the Argentinian military regime to act before the US Congress resumed session, and told it that Washington would not cause it "unnecessary difficulties".

The revelations are likely to further damage Mr Kissinger's reputation. He has already been implicated in war crimes committed during his term in office, notably in connection with the 1973 Chilean coup.

The material, obtained by the Washington-based National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, consists of two memorandums of conversations that took place in October 1976 with the visiting Argentinian foreign minister, Admiral C├ęsar Augusto Guzzetti. At the time the US Congress, concerned about allegations of widespread human rights abuses, was poised to approve sanctions against the military regime.

According to a verbatim transcript of a meeting on October 7 1976, Mr Kissinger reassured the foreign minister that he had US backing in whatever he did.

"Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed," Mr Kissinger is reported as saying. "I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems, but not the context.

"The quicker you succeed the better ... The human rights problem is a growing one ... We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help."

One day earlier, October 6 1976, Adml Guzzetti was told by a senior state department official, Charles Robinson, that "it is possible to understand the requirement to be tough". Mr Robinson is also reported as saying that "the problem is that the United States is an idealistic and moral country and its citizens have great difficulty in comprehending the kinds of problems faced by Argentina today".

"There is a tendency to apply our moral standards abroad and Argentina must understand the reaction of Congress with regard to loans and military assistance. The American people, right or wrong, have the perception that today there exists in Argentina a pattern of gross violations of human rights."

The US ambassador to Argentina, Robert Hill, had been putting pressure on the regime to stop human rights abuses. But after Adml Guzzetti returned from Washington, Mr Hill wrote from Buenos Aires to complain that the Argentinian foreign minister had not heard the same message from Mr Kissinger.

Adml Guzzetti had told the ambassador that Mr Kissinger had merely urged Argentina to "be careful", and had said that if the terrorist problem could be resolved by December or January, "serious problems could be avoided in the US". Mr Hill wrote at the time: "Guzzetti went to US fully expecting to hear strong, firm, direct warnings on his government's human rights practices. He has returned in a state of jubilation, convinced that there is no real problem with the USG [government] over that issue."

The then US assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Harry Shlaudeman, who attended both the Kissinger and the Robinson meetings with Adml Guzzetti, replied to Mr Hill: "As in other circumstances you have undoubtedly encountered in your diplomatic career, Guzzetti heard only what he wanted to hear. He was told in detail how strongly opinion in this country has reacted against reports of abuses by the security forces in Argentina and the nature of the threat this poses to Argentine interests."

However, as the newly released documents make clear, Adml Guzzetti was correct to believe that the regime had, in effect, been given carte blanche by the US government to continue its activities.

In a previously released cable, Mr Hill reported how his human rights concerns were dismissed by the Argentinian president, Jorge Videla: "[The] president said he had been gratified when Guzzetti reported to him that secretary of state Kissinger understood their problem and had said he hoped they could get terrorism under control as quickly as possible.

"Videla said he had the impression senior officers of the USG [government] understood situation his government faces, but junior bureaucrats do not. I assured him this was not the case. We all hope Argentina can get terrorism under control quickly - but to do so in such a way as to do minimum damage to its image and to its relations with other governments. If security forces continue to kill people to tune of brass band, I concluded, this will not be possible."

The revelations, which were also announced at a conference in Argentina yesterday, confirm suspicions at the time that the regime would not have continued to carry out atrocities unless it had the tacit approval of the US, on which it was dependent for financial and military aid.

The junta, which ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, fell after the military's defeat in the Falklands war. During its period in power an estimated 30,000 people may have been arrested, tortured and killed. Many bodies have never been found.

An investigation into those crimes has begun in Argentina.

Mr Kissinger has been asked by the Chilean authorities to give evidence in connection with human rights abuses during the 1973 Chilean coup and the support he gave to the former dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. He is likely to be asked to do the same in Argentina.

He reportedly does not travel abroad without consulting his lawyers about the possibility of his arrest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/06/argentina.usa
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 07:31 am
@izzythepush,
I don't waste my time watching videos other posters offer. Not that my time is important, but why spend my time in an endeavor, based on the reply of someone I have little rapport? Now that would be stupid of me.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 09:56 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
Now that would be stupid of me.


And it's not like you haven't had lots of practice in that area.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 03:16 pm
[quote
Are you Catholic?
Do you respect the Catholic Church?
Do you think the Pope is truly a spiritual leader?
][/quote]

No, I am not a Catholic.

I respect those in the Catholic Church who have tried to help the poor in the USA.

I really don't know if the Pope is truly a spiritual leader as I've never met him and more over, I really don't know very much about him.

What makes a truly great "spiritual leader"?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 03:19 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

Foofie wrote:
...Plus, without Protestantism, who would have developed capitalism to its current complexity?


You talk about religion the way a gynaecologist might talk about sex (i.e. in a dessicated, almost autistic way).



Foofie always manages to muddy the waters...I wonder why?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 03:45 pm
Thanks for responding and answering some of my questions.

I was really interested in determing the answers to the follow-up question after getting an answer to the first.

Just wondering why non-Catholics who don't respect the Church and don't believe Pope Francis, or any pope for that matter, is a true spiritual leader would care very much about this story.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the current pope colluded with the Junta. He may not have resisted them as strongly as others would have liked, but that's not collusion. There is an allegation that he threw two Jesuit priests under the Junta's bus, but he denies this and again there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that he did.

It just seems to me that you have to think the guy was and is pretty special for this story to have any relevance. Undoubtedly, thousands upon thousands of Argentinians didn't resist the Junta as much as some would like and, I'm sure some actually did collude, but they haven't become the subject of a Eugene Robinson column.

I just don't think Robinson and the NYT editorial board think the guy is special in the way true-believing Catholics do.

And frank, Robinson wasn't just reporting on the allegations, he was expressing the judgment he rendered based on them. He can't be considered a "messenger."

A reporter or messenger doesn't end his piece insisting on atonement.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2013 04:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the current pope colluded with the Junta. He may not have resisted them as strongly as others would have liked, but that's not collusion.


From my research, that seems to be true, Finn.

Quote:
There is an allegation that he threw two Jesuit priests under the Junta's bus, but he denies this and again there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that he did.


It's hard to say for sure one way or the other.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/14/pope-francis-argentina-military-junta

http://gawker.com/5990865/the-priest-the-new-pope-allegedly-helped-kidnap-has-given-the-strangest-statement-about-the-incident

Is it as difficult to say what the US's role in this crime was?

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Do You Care About Pope Francis and the Argentinian Junta?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/17/2019 at 08:34:18