Is Pope Francis I's past enough to damn him?

Pope Francis flourished, occupying a prominent position in the Argentine church, at a time when its leaders worked hand in glove with one of the most brutal dictatorships of the 20th century. Is that enough to damn him?

When Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped onto the Vatican balcony as the new pope Francis yesterday evening, the world was instantly charmed by his gentle, unassuming manner and moved by anecdotes about his love of, and identification with, the poor. To many the first Latin American and the first Jesuit to become Pope looks like a breath of fresh air. While almost as old as Pope Benedict was when he was elected, he seems more approachable and down to earth than his austerely professorial predecessor; and while his views on sexual morality are as conservative as one might expect, he also looks set to prioritise questions of social justice over ones of ecclesiastical discipline. Even name Francis seems to point to a new humility – already his watchword – in the Catholoic Church.

But not everyone has given the new pontiff an unreserved welcome. In Argentina he is a divisive figure, not just because of his outspoken views on subjects such as gay marriage but, more pointedly, because of continuing questions over his and the church's role during the dark years of the late 1970s.

It was a time when a military dictatorship responsible for the abduction, torture and murder of many thousands of its own citizens looked to the Catholic Church for moral legitimacy. A time when the murderous General Jorge Videla cultivated a pious image and claimed to be restoring "Christian morals and values" to the nation, and when – according to the late Christopher Hitchens – the papal nuncio was a regular tennis partner of Admiral Emilio Massero, the regime's torturer in chief.

Finally brought to justice thirty years later, an unrepentent Videla described his trial as "one more act of service to the Lord our Father and to the country."

"It's appalling," the anthropologist Laura Agustín told me yesterday on hearing the news of Bergoglio's elevation. "Seeing his face takes me right back to a nightmare."

The case against Bergoglio is both general and particular. As leader of the church in Argentina since 1997, he stands accused of reluctance to properly face up to Catholic complicity with the regime. He twice invoked legal privilege to avoid testifying in cases resulting from the "Dirty War" of the 1970s. When he finally did give evidence in 2010, some observers found his testimony evasive and less than helpful. It wasn't until late last year that Argentina's bishops issued a collective apology in for the church's past failure to stand up to the dictatorship, and even then failed to satisfy critics. The statement acknowledged the role of some senior clerics in supporting the military junta, but fell short of accepting institutional responsibility for the church and had harsh words for Catholics who supported violent resistance to the dictatorship.

Such a belated and tentative acknowledgement of wrongdoing smacks rather of the "too little, too late" approach that has cost the Catholic Church credibility in its response to other scandals of recent years, notably the sexual abuse of children by priests. It hardly suggests that the new pope will be in a hurry to tackle the church's problems head on.

Bergoglio's eventual mea culpa went nowhere near as far as a statement offered by another priest at the 2007 trial of Fr Christian von Wernich, a former prison chaplain who was convicted of direct complicity in seven murders, 42 abductions and 31 cases of torture. On that occasion, Rubén Capitanio told the court that the church had been "scandalously close to the dictatorship. . . to a sinful degree." The church was "like a mother that did not look out for her children," he went on. "It did not kill anybody, but it did not save anybody either."

Argentina was not unique in Latin America for coming under military rule during the 1970s, but the role played by the Catholic church in supporting the regime was unusual. As in Spain under Franco, patriotism and Catholicism came to be closely linked in Argentina. There are even suggestions that bishops gave their blessing to General Jorge Videla and his fellow generals prior to the military coup of March 24th 1976. It's a matter of record that on the day of the coup, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires Adolfo Tortolo emerged from a meeting with the junta to urge his fellow citizens to cooperate "in a positive way" with the new government. He later went out of his way to deny that any human rights abuses were being committed in Argentina.

How much did senior clerics actually know about what was going on? According to the investigative journalist Horacio Verbitsky, who is among the new pope's leading critics, declassified documents reveal that a meeting of bishops in May 1976 heard chilling details of persecution, arbitrary arrest and even torture, but nevertheless voted by a majority to issue a statement calling for understanding towards the military government. The bishops even justified human rights abuses by the regime, stating that "it was wrong to insist that the security agencies act "with the chemical purity of peacetime, while blood runs every day."

As leader of the Jesuit order in Argentina at the time of the coup, Jorge Bergoglio was in a tricky position. He never publicly supported the regime. Speaking out against it, meanwhile, would have carried real dangers: several priests, and two bishops, were among the victims of the Dirty War. But he is accused of more than simply keeping his head down while others sacrificed theirs. The most serious allegation, which formed the basis of a formal criminal complaint in 2005, is that he knew about and failed to prevent the abduction and torture of two fellow Jesuit priests.

The priests, Orlando Yokio and Francisco Jalics, had come under suspicion for their work in the Bajo Flores slum district and for their association with a group of activists that included Monica Mignone, daughter of a prominent lawyer, all of whom later disappeared into the regime's dungeons. The two Jesuits' work, and the liberation theology that inspired it, also attracted the critical attention of their superiors in the church, notably Bergoglio himself, who reportedly offered them a choice between leaving the slum or leaving their priestly ministry. Their licence to minister was withdrawn by the then archbishop a week before they were seized.

According to Verbitsky, whose book The Silence detailed the relationship between church and state in that dark period, the military took the church's action as a green light to have them arrested. What is undoubtedly the case is that there was a certain community of interest between the anti-communism of the military regime and the Church hierarchy's dislike of liberation theology.

Both men were released in October 1976 after five months of interrogation and torture in the notorious Navy Mechanics School, ESMA (where Fr Wernach served as chaplain). In The Jesuit, a collection of conversations between Bergoglia and the writer Sergio Rubin, it is claimed that, far from denouncing Yorio and Jalics, Bergoglio warned the two priests of the danger they were in and later intervened behind the scenes to secure their release. But this is contested. Verbitsky quotes Yorio (who died in 2000) as telling him explicitly that "Bergoglio failed to warn us of danger waiting to happen" and that "I have no reason to think he did something for our freedom, but rather the opposite".

Verbitsky also spoke to Monica Mignone's mother Angelica, who asserted that the two priests "were freed by the efforts of Emilio Mignone and the intercession of the Vatican, not by the actions of Bergoglio, who betrayed them". Another of his interviewees, Yorio's brother Rodolfo, described Bergoglio as "a politician who loves power." Much the same comment, seemingly at odds with the new Pope's modest demeanour, was made last night on Argentine radio by Eduardo de la Serna, coordinator of a left-wing group of priests, who described him as "a man of power [who] knows how position himself among powerful people."

The 2005 complaint did not, in the end, lead to charges being laid against Cardinal Bergoglio, and the truth may never be known. He has strenuously denied any wrongdoing, and has dismissed the allegations as "old slander." That Yurio and Jalics believed that Bergoglio had betrayed them does not of course mean that he did, nor were they in a position to know what private action Bergoglio might have taken on their behalf.

In some ways, the controversy surrounding the new pope recalls that over Pope Pius XII, accused by his critics of not speaking out against the Nazis, while his defenders counter that he did what he could behind the scenes to help individual victims. Bergolgio's own faults may have amounted to little more than naivety and holiness: the very humility that was so widely and instantly acclaimed when he stepped onto the Vatican balcony last night. Perhaps the most damning thing that can be said about him is that he survived, and flourished, occupying a prominent position in the Argentine church at a time when its leaders worked hand in glove with one of the most brutal dictatorships of the 20th century.

The Pope appears on Colombian newspapers. Photograph: Getty Images
Belief, disbelief and beyond belief
Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell don’t need to stand again as MPs – they’ve already won

I just loathe these people. I want to see them humiliated. 

We’re a week in to the campaign, and it’s clear that the 2017 election is going to be hell on toast. The polls show the Tories beating Labour in Scotland (for the first time in a generation) and Wales (for the first time in a century). The bookies put the chances of a Labour majority at around 20/1, odds that are striking mainly because they contain just one zero.

The only element of suspense in this election is whether Theresa May will win a big enough majority to keep Labour out of power for a decade, or one big enough to keep it out for an entire generation. In sum: if you’re on the left, this election will be awful.

But there was one bright spot, a deep well of Schadenfreude that I thought might get us through: the campaign would provide plentiful opportunities to watch the people who got us into this mess be humiliatingly rejected by the electorate yet again.

After all, Ukip’s polling numbers have halved since last summer and the party has fallen back into fourth place, behind the pro-European Lib Dems. Nigel Farage has failed to become an MP seven times. It thus seemed inevitable both that Farage would stand, and that he would lose. Again.

If the vexingly popular Farage has never made it to parliament, the odds that his replacement as Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall (the Walter Mitty of Bootle), would manage it seemed minimal. Ukip may have won last year’s referendum; that did not mean its leaders wouldn’t still lose elections, preferably in the most embarrassing way possible.

The true highlight of the election, though, promised to be Clacton. The Essex seaside town is the only constituency ever to have returned a Ukip candidate at a general election, opting to let the Tory defector Douglas Carswell stay on in 2015. But Carswell’s libertarian belief that Brexit was definitely not about immigration always seemed an odd fit with Ukip, and he left the party in March. In the upcoming election, he seemed certain to face a challenge from the party’s immigration-obsessed donor Arron Banks.

The Clacton election, in other words, was expected to serve as a pleasing metaphor for Ukip’s descent back into irrelevance. The libertarians and nativists would rip chunks out of each other for a few weeks while the rest of us sniggered, before both inevitably lost the seat to a safe pair of Tory hands. This election will be awful, but Clacton was going to be brilliant.

But no: 2017 deprives us of even that pleasure. Carswell has neatly sidestepped the possibility of highlighting his complete lack of personal support by standing down, with the result that he can tell himself he is quitting undefeated.

Carswell has always stood apart from Ukip but on this matter, at least, the party has rushed to follow his lead. Arron Banks spent a few days claiming that he would be running in Clacton. Then he visited the town and promptly changed his mind. At a press conference on 24 April, Paul Nuttall was asked whether he planned to stand for a seat in Westminster. Rather than answering, he locked himself in a room, presumably in the hope that the journalists outside would go away. Really.

As for Farage, he seems finally to have shaken his addiction to losing elections and decided not to stand at all. “It would be a very easy win,” he wrote in the Daily Tele­graph, “and for me a personal vindication to get into the House of Commons after all these years of standing in elections.” He was like an American teenager assuring his mates that his definitely real Canadian girlfriend goes to another school.

Why does all of this bother me? I don’t want these people anywhere near Westminster, and if they insisted on standing for a seat there would be at least the chance that, in these febrile times, one of them might actually win. So why am I annoyed that they aren’t even bothering?

Partly I’m infuriated by the cowardice on show. They have wrecked my country, completely and irrevocably, and then they’ve just legged it. It’s like a version of Knock Down Ginger, except instead of ringing the doorbell they’ve set fire to the house.

Partly, too, my frustration comes from my suspicion that it doesn’t matter whether Ukip fields a single candidate in this election. Theresa May’s Tories have already assimilated the key tenets of Farageism. That Nigel Farage no longer feels the need to claw his way into parliament merely highlights that he no longer needs to.

Then there’s the fury generated by my lingering sense that these men have managed to accrue a great deal of power without the slightest hint of accountability. In the south London seat of Vauxhall, one of the most pro-Remain constituencies in one of the most pro-Remain cities in the UK, the Labour Leave campaigner Kate Hoey is expected to face a strong challenge from the Liberal Democrats. Even Labour members are talking about voting tactically to get their hated MP out.

It remains to be seen whether that campaign succeeds but there is at least an opportunity for angry, pro-European lefties to register their discontent with Hoey. By contrast, Farage and his henchmen have managed to rewrite British politics to a degree that no one has achieved in decades, yet there is no way for those who don’t approve to make clear that they don’t like it.

Mostly, though, my frustration is simpler than that. I just loathe these people. I want to see them humiliated. I want to see them stumble from gaffe to gaffe for six weeks before coming fourth – but now we will be deprived of that. Faced with losing, the biggest names in Ukip have decided that they no longer want to play. And so they get to win again. They always bloody win. 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

This article first appeared in the 27 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Cool Britannia 20 Years On

0800 7318496