I've never been comfortable with labels that end in -ist or -istic, so I generally have only a vague sense or none at all about most of the -isms from which the adjectival labels derive. I had to look up the primary and secondary meanings of 'historicism' to interpret what Aldo Maria Valli means when he refers to Bergoglio as being 'historicist'. Those meanings are 1) the theory that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history; and 2) the tendency to regard historical development as the most basic aspect of human existence - because both seem to be illustrated by the examples Valli cites about Bergoglio's 'historicism'.
When the pope is a historicist...
A reflection on Bergoglio's philosophical thoughts
Translated from
March 12, 2018
In the course of these five years of the Bergoglio pontificate, numerous observers have underscored a certain ambiguity in Pope Francis.
['A certain ambiguity' is surely quite an understatement! He is the very epitome of self-serving ambiguity!] Saying something but not really saying it, saying Yes but also No, No but also Yes, because everything, in the end, depends on the circumstances and the conditions of the subject.
It is in this sense, for example, that the pope made the statements he did at the Lutheran Church in Rome [
about interfaith communion], but we could say the same, and for more reason, about Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia on communion for remarried divorcees, where possibilitism [‘anything is possible’] holds sway through the case-by-case solution.
According to Bergoglio’s critics,
his fundamental ambivalence (that which in the past I have called the logic of 'not just.. but also’) is a serious limitation because it denies the truth of eternal divine law, it jeopardizes the very idea that good and bad exist objectively, and introduces into the magisterium massive doses of relativism and subjectivism.
These are questions often faced in the discussions about Bergoglio, but the point is that, on balance after five years of his pontificate, one must take account of one fact- which is, that
his ambivalence is not just the result of an inadequacy in theological and philosophical matters, but that it is something intended and deliberate in what amounts to a true and proper program of action.
Indications to this effect have become numerous by now, starting with all the times that this pope has underscored
the importance of ‘generating processes’, without ever stating the goal of such processes but rather emphasizing the importance of the process itself (of generating processes). [That inherent open-endedness is also found in his very idea of dialog – in which it is the process that counts, not the substance, so no question will ever be resolved, and dialog will be forever ongoing, because it becomes an endless cycle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, with every synthesis becoming a new thesis generating an antithesis, etc.]
It is a conscious indetermination which goes hand in hand with the attempt to soften doctrine, to make it more malleable, less rigid, and leaving it to the pastors (bishops and priests) to interpret it – the famous ‘discernment’ – on the basis of the ‘real situation’ and the conditions of every single concrete case.
Bergoglio calls it ‘evangelical realism’ to which he contrasts the ‘rigidity’ of those he calls hypocrites, Pharisees, arrogant, legalist and incapable of mercy or love. It seems
the idea is completely absent in him that it is precisely having a precise and immutable law that ought to be the first and most important expression of mercy and love, because this allows the individual to orient himself according to given coordinates that will keep him from being waylaid by worldly enticements, from losing himself in sin and from victimizing himself. But that is why [in Bergoglio’s world],
discernment is the center, and not the law. That is why mercy is conceived not as a restatement of an eternal truth but as understanding and accompaniment along the path set by history
[which mostly has to do with 'feeling good' about oneself, and as with endless dialog, dispensinng 'mercy' makes Bergoglians puff up with their virtuousness! Which would be forgivable, if only they - especially the pope - dispensed their willingness to dialog and their mercy to everyone, not ignore the questioning of those who do not share their views, and be relentlessly merciless towards them in word and thought!]
Now that Bergoglio is entering the sixth year of his pontificate, it is possible to foresee that yet another test bed – after that of communion to remarried divorcees – is being added to the agenda of ‘generating processes’, in which local churches will be left to regulate themselves in how to apply new processes in the absence of any ‘rigid’ discipline.
I refer here to the end of mandatory celibacy for priests which will probably be ‘floated’ at the synod for the youth in October this year, and more properly launched at the coming synod on the Amazon region in October 2019, to deal with the priest shortage in a huge region that, it has been proposed, ought to be supplemented by consecrating viri probati, who could well pave the way for married priests.
Of course, decisions of this kind – as we all saw in the case of communion for remarried divorcees – are profoundly divisive, but even in this case, one must not think of its consequences for the pope. Because in fact, it is all part of a plan, as one might infer from a statement made by the pope to some of his closest collaborators:
“It is not to be excluded that I shall pass into history as he who split the Catholic Church”. [Surely, that has got to rank among the most infamous things ever said by any pope who is hereby openly admitting that instead of being the symbol of unity that he ought to be for the Church, he revels instead in being the divider! Yet that statement came and went virtually ignored by all of MSM and picked up at the time by only a handful of orthodox commentators, even if it was an open admission by Bergoglio of his divisiveness. I would call this a scandal by the definition the Church gives to scandal! But how jaded has the media become that it fails to recognize a scandal of this type!]
It is A concept which links to something he has said a number of times, of preferring a church of vicissitudes to a self-referential church.
[Where does he get this idee fixe of a self-referential church anyway? The only thing self-referential these days about ‘the Church’ is Bergoglio himself!]
But let us try to look deeper into the centrality attached by the pope to ‘generating processes’. To do that, one must go back to the first of the four postulates he enunciated in
Evangelii gaudium, or more precisely, the second postulate according to which ‘time is greater than space’.
That he considers this postulate of primary importance can be deduced from the fact that he speaks of it, not just in EG, but also in Lumen fidei, Laudato si, and AL. What exactly does it mean?
[I have always found it an absurd statement, seeing that it has been more than a century that modern minds have accepted the Einteinian postulate that the physical world and everything that takes place in it is a space-time continuum, i.e., that every event has four dimensions - the three x,y,z coordinates of space, plus time as the fourth coordinate - that one can plot every event on a continuum occupying finite space in a finite period of time. Besides, nothing happens in time that does not necessarily occupy space! Events do not take place in a spaceless void – otherwise they are not real events but imaginary.]
Bergoglio explains it in EG:
This principle enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results. It helps us patiently to endure difficult and adverse situations, or inevitable changes in our plans. It invites us to accept the tension between fullness and limitation, and to give a priority to time. One of the faults which we occasionally observe in sociopolitical activity is that spaces and power are preferred to time and processes. Giving priority to space means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back. Giving priority to time means being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces. Time governs spaces, illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return. What we need, then, is to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events. Without anxiety, but with clear convictions and tenacity.
The typical indeterminateness of Bergoglio is evident here, but the statements are also revelatory in what he says about ‘inevitable changes in our plans’, ‘the dynamism of reality’, ‘favoring action’ – we are being taught the primacy of history!
And here’s how he restates the concept in AL: “It is about generating processes rather than dominating space”. With this specification:
“Remembering that time is superior to space, I wish to reiterate that not all doctrinal, moral or pastoral discussions have to be resolved by interventions of the Magisterium, Of coure, in the Church, a unity of doctrine and praxis is necessary, but this does not exclude that there exist different ways of interpreting some aspects of doctrine or some consequences deriving from it. This will happen until the Spirit brings us to the complete truth (cf Jn 16:13), that is, when he introduces us perfectly into the mystery of Christ and we can see everything through his eyes. Moreover, every country or region can seek solutions that are more inculturated, attentive to traditions and to to local challenges”.
As you can see, Bergoglio continue to operate along the logic of ‘not just… but also’ – i.e.,
unity of doctrine and praxis is all very well, but so is a diversity of interpretations – as if the two could go hand in hand, even as he affirms that,
in practice, one can look for the appropriate solutions within every given situation. So once again, the primacy of history.
In support of which, here is what Bergoglio said in his September 2013 interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro for
La Civilta Cattolica:
“God manifests himself in a historical revelation, in time. Time initiates processes, space crystallizes them. God is found in time, in ongoing processes. [But not in space??? What will the pantheists say? Seriously, does Bergoglio not believe that God is everywhere?[ There is no need to favor spaces of power over the time required for processes, no matter how long. We must begin processes rather than occupy space. God manifests himself in time and is present in the processes of history. This means favoring actions which generate new dynamics. And it requires patience, waiting”.
[And did Spadaro have to quote this embarrassing paragraph at all? Or did he genuinely think it was a masterpiece of philosophical reflection that needed to be shared with the world? Sometimes you have to protect your boss from making a fool of himself, and one way to do that is omit quoting anything in which he does make a fool of himself!]
Every word of the above can be contested
[It all sounded like gibberish to me the first time I read it, and more so now – the gibberish of someone who is trying his best to sound ‘profound’ and only ends up being absurdly nonsensical!]. Why, for instance, is the idea of space necessarily linked to power?
[But time, too, is very much power - just consider every totalitarian autocrat or regime that has sought to perpetuate itself in history!] But what one must note is that once more, he attributes supreme importance to processes that take place in the course of history.
If the only ‘true’ dimension of reality is the passage of time, and if becoming and acting have primacy over being, one must draw the conclusion that Bergoglio is proposing a historicist view of reality and the human experience.
At this point, the poor chronicler of news, the observer of Vatican affairs, gives up. Here, the philosophers must take over. Because how else could one define Bergoglio’s thought if not that he is a historicist? It is not by chance that he told
La Civilta Cattolica,
“If a person says he has encountered God with total certainty and having any uncertainty at all, then something is wrong. When one has the answers to all questions, that is the proof that God is not with him”. [AHA! But is it not this same Bergoglio who has claimed that everything he has said and done as pope has been directly ‘suggested’ if not dictated to him by the Holy Spirit![//b] Typically for him, of course, he does not seem to realize at all that the things he criticizes most in others are also his very own characteristics that make him objectionable as a person and as a pope!]
Whoever looks at reality from the historicist point of view and makes this perspective his key to interpreting reality is unable to perceive anything real but the historical course of events. But how can this be reconciled with the certainty of faith? And with eternal truths? And with dogma? And with the sacraments? And with immutable divine law?
And that is why the true question one must ask of this pope is: “Excuse me, but what do you think of metaphysics?’ After five years of this pontificate, the question is relevant – while we await other initiatives under the sign of ‘generating processes’.
[He probably does not believe in metaphysics at all – studies ‘being as such’ or ‘the first causes of things’ and ‘ things that do not change’. In which perspective, I do not understand Bergoglio’s and Bergolianism’s obsession with change for the sake of change, being unable to let well enough alone - as if failing to change or to make changes were somehow completely irrational and reprehensible, while on the other hand, making changes, any change, makes them feel they are doing something!]
Imagine my stupefaction when right after translating this post by Valli yesterday - on the general theme of Bergoglio's intellectual limitations - I then came upon the Vatican news story about Benedict XVI's supposed glowing endorsement of Bergoglio's philosophical and theological formation, blah-blah-blah.
I don't take to such reports about Benedict XVI with any degree of equanimity at all, especially not at one o'clock in the morning, and I asked myself: Dear Lord, is the Vatican putting out this outrage as part of their observance of the fifth anniversary of that scourge of a conclave that gave us Bergoglio for a pope? How sick can they be to instrumentalize a 91-year-old man this way? Would Joseph Ratzinger ever commit himself to saying lies on paper? Because they have to be lies! So I said to sleep over it...
And sure enough today, Sandro Magister, Antonio Socci and Marco Tosatti promptly came forth with their reactions...