Be wary of Bergoglio

Turning a new page in the Catholic Church from the first moment of his ascension to Pope, Cardinal Bergoglio appeared to refresh a congregation to which more than 1 billion people belong.

As Archbishop of Buenos Aires , tales of his travelling to work by public transport, inhabiting modest accommodation, and tending to the sick, needy, and impoverished of the nation with open arms inspired even those who had previously criticized the church.

Perhaps the terse, traditional, and austere days of Pope Benedict could be forgotten and brushed over, returning instead to the high-flying and celebrity-fuelled decades of John Paul II.

The first brushstrokes of Pope Francis’ administration are sharp in their contrast: passionate reds and greens against Benedict’s greys and golds; a keeper of the ornate furniture and robes, defender of stigma, dogma, and superstition thankfully usurped.

There are many plus sides to Francis’ more radical bent.

His interpretation of Catholic tradition regarding charity and penance should be embraced and encouraged by observers in the same way he took into his arms a severely disfigured gentleman earlier this year.

These kinds of images, hardly frequent during Vatican memory, ought to stir the soul. But against those who claim the highest authority of all, a closer look is required.

That charity, so often touted by defenders of the Vatican and their vast riches, barely brushes up against what should be expected from a supposedly selfless and benevolent institution representing a supposedly selfless and benevolent almighty power.

A recent editorial (filed ironically under the heading ‘Modest Proposals’ on Gawker) pointed out the vast amount of cash spent on covering, protecting, and absolving the many and numerous members of the clergy who gravely and disgustingly betrayed a sacred trust granted by their young charges.

Succinctly, it argues that we “must not automatically project the goodness of a person onto the entire institution that that person controls.” It further points to an Economist assessment of Vatican finances. Less than 3% of its $170 billion worth is spent on charitable works annually.

Economic arguments aside, the Catholic Church occupies a place of significant moral importance for modern affairs, and for the aforementioned 1 billion adherents.

Its role in the Syrian Civil War has been far from detached and diplomatic. Francis hosted Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and Greek Orthodox patriarch Gregorios Laham III in late November this year – both of whom are inexorably tied to the murderous regime in Damascus, either by material or spiritual support. Russia’s hand in stalling talks of intervention despite ongoing slaughter and a burgeoning refugee crisis gives Bashar al-Assad license to continue his destablising campaigns.

As we well know the Catholic mascot Mother Theresa, still on her way to a manufactured beatification as I write this, is hardly a brilliant advertisement for an accepting and humble church. Her dishonesty has been well-documented and does not need to be explored further here.

Despite all the resources at its disposal, the Church has not provided any more evidence that it should be the keeper of all things decent and delectable in an otherwise muddy society.

More moderate and accepting observers of Francis’ new methods point towards engagements on debates around abortion and contraception, and further to his off-the-cuff pronouncement that perhaps – heaven forbid – atheists might have their souls saved if they perform “good works”.

Alas, the leader of the world’s largest unified church provides no fresh evidence for the afterlife, nor does he make it any more enticing or believable than a huckster on a street corner holding a sign insisting “THE END IS NIGH!”

Therefore, his ability to judge an atheist, or even an agnostic or doubting person’s suitability for a crystalised afterlife must be doubted. Bertrand Russell’s retort to a hypothetical meeting with god (“Oh lord, you did not give us enough evidence”) springs to mind.

Perhaps most troublingly, Francis shows no willingness to reverse policies against contraception that have been so damaging to predominantly Catholic nations in Africa where the empowerment of women through birth control must be insisted upon. HIV and AIDS, too, are prevalent. Yet hypocritically, the papacy continues to hand out cash with one hand while slamming shut a regress to positive change with the other. These nations are wracked by a form of poverty provoked by tribalism and the gospel equally.

Policies against homosexuals, akin to the Anglican Church, show no sign of being dispensed with. How can it be that some of god’s (many and differing) representatives on earth won’t accept gay and lesbian people for a nature presumably granted by the almighty in the womb? Were they not made in god’s image, as is so often preached to the congregation?

Cardinal Bergoglio seems to have transferred his model of economic fairness into his new role as Pope, but it is simply not enough to right the wrongs of decades (even centuries) of fibs, rip-offs, thefts, abandonments, and cover-ups of the most heinous kinds.

Before the crowds tout his modest achievements any louder or hoarser, a closer eye ought to be cast and held over St Peter’s, and further afield to the missions which hold such potential for those most in need.

Follow James on Twitter: @James_ARobins