Pope Francis’s fluctuating discourse—some call it the “liquid magisterium”—never stops disturbing the Catholic faithful. On December 27, 2020, on his website, the Italian journalist Marcello Veneziani wondered about “the mystery of the Pope and his duplicity.” Here are some analyses by academics and Vaticanists in an attempt to pinpoint this mystery a little better, in three concentric circles.
Francis’s Duplicity on the Legalization of Abortion in Argentina
Regarding the legalization of abortion in Argentina,—voted in by the Senate on December 30, 2020, see FSSPX.News of January 5, 2021. In mid-December 2020, The philosopher José Arturo Quarracino addressed to Sandro Magister a severe criticism of the pope’s “calculated silence” on this hotly debated question in recent months. José Arturo Quarracino is the nephew of Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, the predecessor of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the archiepiscopal see of Buenos Aires.
This Argentinian philosopher writes: “In the interview-book Let Us Dream (Simon and Schuster, 2020), with Austen Ivereigh, there are doctrinally correct and precise formulations [against abortion].
“But several days later, we learned of the Sovereign Pontiff's cooperation with the Council for Inclusive Capitalism [a world organization established under the auspices of the Vatican, under the moral supervision of Pope Francis, led by a group of CEOs and world leaders, like the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation—Editor's note], as if he were the chaplain of that undertaking of the great international plutocracy, with companies and personalities who have ALL been responsible for the implementation of the greatest genocide known in human history, that of unborn children.”
“In other words, Pope Bergoglio is participating in a politico-economic undertaking associated with those who have implemented and carried out the genocide that he himself criticizes. That is to say, he is critical in his words against abortion, but a de facto partner with abortion promoters. Isn’t he a little schizophrenic?”
“If his position were strong, what he should do, and there is still time [the abortion law had yet to be passed by the Argentine Senate in mid-December—Editor's note], is to write publicly and officially, on papal letterhead, letters to the Argentine president and to Vice-President Cristina Kirchner, expressing his total and absolute rejection.”
“He could also—and he must—ask for prayers for Argentina to successfully face the genocidal offensive underway, both during his Wednesday audiences and during the Sunday Angelus. If he can publicly commit himself to other issues—environment, immigrants, global economic inequality—why does he not do so on this issue, which is more important than those just mentioned?”
Concerning the vice-president Cristina Kirchner, José Arturo Quarracino insists: “It is to her that Francis must officially and publicly write the ideas expressed privately [to a priest, to former students, to a group of Argentine women—Editor's note]. If he does not do it, then we will be in the presence of a montage to cover up a de facto complicity, even if it seems—that is all there is for now—like a total opposition. [In fact] until now, it is an apparent opposition, concealed under theoretical formulas.”
In this clarification addressed to Sandro Magister, José Arturo Quarracino does not fail to report the public scandal caused by giving communion to the President of the Argentine Republic, after he said he was in favor of abortion: “At the end of January of this year , the Argentine president was received on an official visit by Francis, in an atmosphere of generous cordiality.”
“On that occasion, not only did they [the members of the Roman hierarchy] not even allude to Alberto Fernández’s abortion decision, but also Msgr. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo [chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences] celebrated a scandalous mass in the crypt where the remains of St. Peter are deposited, giving him communion, despite his avowed pro-abortion “faith” and his decision to promote the prenatal death penalty.”
“As a result, it was clear that the first Argentine magistrate was going to move forward decisively with his project, and that the ecclesiastical hierarchy, in Argentina and the Vatican, were going to offer a soft opposition, reaffirming their pro-life stance and… nothing of more.”