Pope Francis and the Idea of Reparation

Pope Francis’s decision to change the primatial see of Argentina should not be seen as merely a local choice. Indeed, the decision and the reasons for the decision itself represent, in some way, the entire modus operandi of Pope Francis. There are, in the Pope’s choice to move the primatial see of Argentina from Buenos Aires to Santiago del Estero, some of the fundamental characteristics of Pope Francis’ pontificate: The will to change things, the furtherance of a specific self-driven narrative, the (re-)reading of history according to specific criteria, and – above all – the idea of reparation or remedy.

And this last one is, perhaps, the fundamental characteristic of Pope Francis the governor.

Francis has used the papal office with which the cardinal electors entrusted him to repair what he considers to have been real wrongs. In each consistory, for example, Francis has created “remedial cardinals” in order to repair perceived wrongs done in the past and indicate which side Francis was on in past controversies.

Since the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis has claimed that the center is better seen from the peripheries. He has complained of Rome’s lack of consideration for other people’s points of view—the point of view he represented when he was not Pope.

Francis has taken up some topics, such as mercy, in his very own way. He has talked of how his preference for speaking of a “God of tenderness” wasn’t terribly well received when he began speaking in that way, but he can do it now that he is Pope.

He likes popular devotions and lavished attention on popular movements at the beginning of his pontificate (which then, to tell the truth, disappeared over time). In general, we’ve seen the return of many themes that were somehow outdated, perhaps the biggest being his fight against traditionalists.

What does the transfer of a primatial see have to do with all this?

To answer that, a little history is in order.

In Argentina, the primatial archdiocese has been in Buenos Aires since 1936, if only because it was the first archbishopric erected on Argentine territory. There is another older diocese, the Archdiocese of Córdoba, and it is no coincidence that the ancient archbishop, Cardinal Raul Francisco Primatesta, repeatedly asked to transfer the primatial see to Córdoba.

However, the Jesuits also sent Pope Francis to Córdoba at the end of his term as provincial, practically exiled in his own company. Given the significance that Córdoba has for the Pope, it was difficult for him to accept this request.

Instead, he accepted the idea of a historical reparation. The original diocese was called Córdoba del Tucuman. In a joint statement, the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires and the newly established Diocese of Santiago del Estero emphasize that the decision should be considered “a special moment in the life of our diocesan communities” and that it is “an important reparation of ecclesiastical history.”

The two dioceses emphasize that the ancient diocese of Tucuman, founded by Saint Pius V in 1570, had a see in what is now the ancient city of Santiago del Estero, while from the beginning, the diocese of Tucuman included Cordoba, La Rioja, Catamarca, Tucuman, Santiago del Estero, Salta, Jujuy, Tarija, and Nueva Oran, while the cathedral was the Church of San Pedro and San Pablo, which was located in the territory of the current see of Santiago del Estero.

The episcopal see of the city of Córdoba was created in 1699, while the diocese of Santiago del Estero was created in 1907. It was decided that the Diocese of Santiago del Estero is the primatial see. However, it did not exist at the time of the facts, and although the cathedral was only located in the territory – but is not present now – it was the oldest diocese. Not even Córdoba is considered, and the sees of the dioceses are often changed without changing the territory.

The final part of the statement also invites us to “have a comprehensive look at the national territory in a renewed federal purpose.”

What does this statement say? First, Pope Francis accepts a reading of history that is at least partial. The primatial see is always the oldest episcopal see, but in general, a new see is not created to create a new primatial see. Pope Francis admits to rereading history; he defines it as a repair, but in doing so, he risks bending to an ideological reading of history, which is far from the reality of the facts and, therefore, not very concrete.

Then, there is the reference to the “federal”—i.e. decentralizing—purpose, which has been present in the pontificate since the beginning, at least in words. The synodal push, as well as the idea of using the press releases of local Episcopal Conferences in papal documents, has from the start given the impression of wanting to aim for a federation of episcopal conferences, each partially independent on some specific issues and each with its reason for being. This would allow the peripheries to be protagonists again and would repair the fact that Rome has not listened to their cries or understood their situation.

However, the idea of a federation—more socio-political than religious—goes against the idea of a unity of the Church guaranteed by the Pope.

Bishops’ conferences, after all, are administrative bodies. Among other things, the Pope shows that he wants to give autonomy, but only the autonomy he deems appropriate. The German Bishops’ Conference, for example, was blocked on its synodal path by the Pope, who warned that the ongoing process could be a sign of division in the Church. All true, but how can we justify the push towards a federation?

Finally, there is the idea of reconstructing history and going beyond the past. Reparation, which is also the case in Latin America, is reparation against the abuses of the Church. An idea of reparation led Pope Francis, for example, mutatis mutandis, to accept the Chinese interpretation that the Gospel was brought to Beijing and its surroundings with colonial pressures and by importing and imposing a Western culture. This is a reading that is partially true but does not take into account the good missions, the anti-Christian persecutions to which Catholics were subjected, and the work done to purify the missions from all colonialism.

Thus, the concept of historical reparation, which was born in the context of Latin America (inspired in large part by the Virgin of Guadalupe, central to Pope Francis’s devotional mindset and a key to understanding his Latin American view of the world) becomes a universal concept for the life of the Church. A concept that, however, does not allow us to see the history of the Church, that leaves itself open to ideologized readings, that contrasts points of view without allowing us to have a unitary and all-encompassing vision of situations.

The basic idea may be sound, but the ideologization of the basic idea results in a sort of “woke” culture within the Church itself.

Pope Francis is both a driver and a victim of a debate that, in recent years, has become increasingly polarized.

This is also demonstrated by a recent essay by Cardinal Duka, Archbishop Emeritus of Prague, on the situation of the diplomacy of the Holy See, which follows the pattern of the Ostpolitik rejected by John Paul II and then returned to favor in this new diplomatic effort. Reading, also that polarized and polarizing, testifies how much in the Church must be done not so much to purify memory but to reconcile it with reality. Pope Francis is the result of a Church that has learned to accuse itself without reaffirming the good done—a Church, ultimately, a bit masochistic from the historical point of view.

But this is the characteristic of the pontificate, which then reflects the characteristic of the ongoing debate. In the future, it will be necessary for the Church to know how to reconcile itself with its history. It will be required for the Pope who comes not to decide to be inside all the decisions and to personally approve some that he considers of particular importance because of his personal history. Less personalism, more Church: this is the challenge of the future.