March 15, 2013

Vatican defends Pope Francis’ actions during Argentina’s ‘Dirty War’

Print More
Faithful visitors react before newly elected Pope Francis appears on the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on Wednesday (March 13) in Vatican City. Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th pontiff and will lead the world's 1.2 billion Catholics.  RNS photo by Andrea Sabbadini

Faithful visitors react before newly elected Pope Francis appears on the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on Wednesday (March 13) in Vatican City. Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th pontiff and will lead the world's 1.2 billion Catholics. RNS photo by Andrea Sabbadini

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

VATICAN CITY (RNS) The Vatican swiftly rejected accusations that Pope Francis sided with the brutal Argentinian government in the 1970s when he was a Jesuit leader.

  • Eugene Pagano

    At the moment I would hesitate to judge the new Bishop of Rome, certainly without more information.

    An example from the Anglican Church might help. (I have converted from Roman Catholicism to Episcopalianism.)

    Janani Luwum was an archbishop in Uganda who was murdered by Idi Amin. He is not recognized as an Anglican saint and commemorated at Westminster Abbey as a 20th century martyr. (Others so commemorated include Maximilian Kolbe and Oscar Romero.) However, he interceded with the Uganda police and Idi Amin privately and was criticized for continuing to attend governmental functions:
    http://satucket.com/lectionary/janani_luwum.htm

    Had Amin not had Archbishop Luwum murdered, he would probably have been subject to many of the same criticisms as the new Bishop of Rome.

  • Eugene Pagano

    Correction” Archbishop Luwum is NOW recognized as an Anglican saint and commemorated at Westminster Abbey.

  • peter

    When so called journalist do a story such as the one above why don’t you do a real story and interview the two jesuits that were taken prisoner and find out their thoughts on the matter?

  • Old Dude

    There is a double-speak in claiming a superior ought to have shielded unlawful priests from their government. U.S. bishops and cardinals were accused to obstructing justice by shielding unlawful priests. Priest activists are breaking laws (like the Berrigan brothers). So which is correct? To shield or not to shield? An adult man (priest or not) is deemed to appreciate the consequences of his acts: including government punishment. Should your boss intervene in your misdeeds? Should your NFL shield you from penalty? Should your union shield you? Your AMA? Should AAA fight your traffic ticket? WHY should your cardinal shield you from your government?