Friday, August 4, 2017

Loris Zanatta: "Pope Francis is a typical representative of Latin American populism"

Loris Zanatta: "It is not an insult to call Pope Francis a populist"
(Buenos Aires) On 1 August, Clarin, the largest Argentine daily newspaper, published an editorial by Ricardo Roa, criticizing the "alarming silence" of Pope Francis to the state crisis in Venezuela. It was quoted by Loris Zanatta, professor of Latin American history at the University of Bologna. An interview was published in the current August issue of the Argentine economic magazine, Fortuna, with Zanatta about "the phenomenon of populism in Latin America and especially in Argentina." The historian was asked for a brief statement about various personalities - among them Pope Francis:
Fortuna: Pope Francis?

Title of "Fortuna" with reference to the Zanatta interview

Zanatta: It is no insult to say that he is a typical representative of Latin populism. His idea is that there is a people that is above the political agreements and the constitutional people and is the guardian of historical legitimacy: the people of God. No pope has so often used the word people. Pope Francis does not distinguish economic liberalism from political liberalism. He often uses the word pluralism against the market, which, he says, homogenizes the world, destroys cultures and peoples. His idea of ​​pluralism is that of peoples and cultures, which are generally not pluralistic. His point of view is that of Latin Catholicism: the poor are the protectors of the Catholic virtues. They are the true people. The others are not, even if they win elections.
The evidence of the Peronian expert Zanatta reflects the Latin aspect in the pontificate of Pope Francis, but they do not explain - if they are correct - why Francis does not seem to pay attention to the peoples and cultures of Europe by his demand for unrestricted immigration. The philosopher and former Italian senate president Marcello Pera, a friend of Benedict XVI, accused Francis of promoting mass immigration out of "hate against the West".
The monthly magazine Fortuna appears by the publisher Perfil and has nothing to do with the media publisher of the daily Clarin.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Photo: Fortuna (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred


  1. "Mass immigration out of 'hate against the West'" is exactly what is going on. Christian Europe is not a commodity that he wishes for. He is a first generation Argentinian immigrant whose parents were Italian.----He wishes to take Liberation Theology to its logical conclusion which is world wide Communism.

    1. Our Lady said it would happen, she also said the consecration would be made "late, but not too late". So keep firing the .50 caliber that is your rosary.

  2. Jorge's pure love for Satan, disguised in his, duplicity, is what drives him.


  3. Anti- pope francis is a typical representative of Latin American populism.

    Fixed it for him.

  4. The lunar trads who persist in their teenage sedevacantist rants might learn from the timely and very wise cautions recently given by Frs Ray Blake and Hunwicke in the UK. Francis is the Pope, like it or not, so start from there not from delusions and denialism.

    1. Except his election should be invalidated by Sankt Gallen group's skullduggery.

      It's funny how Vatican II encouraged treating the laity like adults, and you lot insist on handing us a steaming plate of excrement as if it were healthy food and expect us to eat it, lest you call us nasty names.

      Galat is hardly raving. Perhaps you're the one who's becoming unhinged?

    2. Clearly the 'Sankt Gallen' business has had no purchase with the Conclave Cardinals, abdicated pontiff Benedict or even the leadership of the SSPX. It only continues to surface with people like you who cling to the corpse of delusionism.
      At least the Cardinals have enough honesty to recognise that there have always been electioneering lobby groups and there always will be. Look at the nonsense old ecclesiastical tarts like Burke, Sarah, Muller & Co are up to at this very moment with considerable support from commenters from this blog and others like it.
      Take the blinkers off, Tancred.

    3. It's a latae sententiae excommunicable offense. I guess the rules only matter when it's the peons, and isolated orthodox clergy, who object to the rules being broken in the first place?

    4. Go mince up the Novus Ordo Watch blog,.

    5. A major part of the internal conflict in the Church today is that your so-called 'orthodox clergy' know more about a selected portion of Canon Law, a lot about lesser Church law, even more about the secret messages of Fatima than they do about the Gospel and sound Catholic theology.
      If the Dubia Bros and their clerical supporters were educated in the Catholic theological tradition on the primacy of conscience handed down from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas then they would know that Amoris Laetitia stands fair and square within that Tradition.
      It is the under-catechised and weak minded who allow themselves to be controlled and manipulated just as the Galatians were. Read what Paul had to say to them and you'll perhaps understand more clearly.

    6. Just his reference to orthodox and venerable prelates like Burke and Sarah (I would not include the slippery Muller among these) as "tarts' tells you everything about this slime ball that signs off as "John Collins." His poisonous comments should be blocked as the dangerous garbage that they are, for error, the Church always taught, has no rights. He is not only into papolatry---I think that is his ploy to unsettle traditional Catholics who write for this web site and smear our cause. Very possibly he does not give a fig about Francis the Clown; this evil and deranged pontiff is his convenient excuse to attack orthodox Catholicism. A true snake in the grass, this liberal misfit. RCC

    7. Francis 'the clown' is straight out of the reprehensible lexicon of another poisonous blog that is published by an Italian who wants to be a German but settles on being British. That's his real problem, Francis is a whipping boy for him just as he is for you 8: 17 PM

    8. You're reprehensible lexicon in a flesh suit, 'John C'.

  5. John Collins remins me of the way ETWN used to be "yes Holy Father, No Holy Father....whatever you say, Holy Father. Black is really white, Yes Holy Father. Divorced to receive Holy Communion is perfectly fine....Yes Holy father. Gays and LGBT are moral and unright lives....Yes Holy Father".
    Seriously, Dude, do you really think, with the way the Church is going...that's the right attitude yo take? No way, Man!
    Jose Galat had the courage in Colombia to call Francis exactly what he is. The article oby Loris Zanatta is anything but complimentary to Francis. And a friend of mine who is a young nun in Rome recently told me by e-mail (when she's permitted to e-mail), that there are dozens of anti-Francis articles appearing in Italian papers weekly. She said that good Catholic faithful turned away from him before even the more secular press is Italy is questioning his agenda. Oly the most radical Iand mostly aging or even extremely elderly), love Francis. The young are ambivalent towards him. Many hundreds of Young priests in Italy hate him.
    Now by his big mouth, and that of his associates, he's made enemies of well over 60% of USA Catholics. Read what he's said about USA Catholics. It ain't pretty. If millions are trying to be good, Faithful, traditional Catholics and keeping the Faith, and your own Pope insults you for doing so, are you still going to be loyal to him?
    Only if you're brain dead.
    The real Pope is Benedict XVI, but unfortunately, he's too cowardly to come out and admit it.
    Damian Malliapalli

    (by the way, one of the rad liberal Francis-loving Cardianls just died today....83 yr. old Italian Diogeni Tettamanzi, the former Archbishop of Milan. Francis lost one of his biggest Italian supporters.
    May he rest in peace.

  6. Now read Hunwicke on this matter:

    Sedevacantism yet again

    :I venture to draw the attention of those readers who write to me about one or other of the many, indeed, Protean, forms 'Sedevacantism' takes, to the fact that Bishop Richard Williamson, on his blog, has written a two-part series on Sedevacantism. It is the second time in recent months that he has done this.

    I often don't agree with what his Excellency does, says, or writes; and I wouldn't always express myself as he does. But I warmly second his apprehension that this pernicious error can be a real danger to souls.

    My often-expressed view (and I think the Bishop's view is along the same lines) is that the Ultrahyperueberpapalism of some who surround Papa Bergoglio, and Sedevacantism, are two sides of the same dangerously erroneous coin. Or, if you prefer, a pair of inseparably joined Siamese Twins. They both massively exaggerate the personal inerrancy of the man who is the Roman Pontiff. Accepting an absurdly inflated notion of personal papal inerrancy, Bergoglian ultras (correctly believing him to be Pope) conclude that therefore his every word and even hint must be the ipsissimum verbum Spiritus; sedevacantists (deeming him to be guilty of repeated blunders) conclude that he "obviously" cannot really be pope.

    Both views are equally absurd. And both involve the same erroneous premise: personal papal inerrancy. I have called it an error; I think I could justify calling it a heresy in view of the defined dogma of Vatican I that the Successors of S Peter have not been given the Holy Spirit so that by His inspiration they can propagate new doctrine.

    And both are equally dangerous to souls.

    Bergoglio is Pope. He's not my own favourite pope, but he's Pope. Vicar of Christ. Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Capable of being the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church's own infallibility and of binding all our consciences were he manifestly to fulfill the immensely careful conditions laid down by the admirable decree Pastor aeternus of Vatican I.

    To deny that is a most grave danger to Catholic Faith and to Communio."

    You might just think of what Fr Hunwicke is saying here before you mouth off next time, Damian.

    There have been less than good Popes before now, as Cardinal Pell very wisely pointed out a couple of years ago in his Iuventutem sermon. Sensible Catholics take the long view. And sensible Catholics also know that the College of Cardinals is not guaranteed the peremptory guidance of the Holy Spirit when it meets in electoral conclave. Some real 101% shockers have, in the past, emerged from the pope-making process! If that were, sadly, to happen in our own time, there would be nothing new about it!

    I remind readers that I do not enable comments which seem to me Sedevacantist or Sedeprivationist or which claim that the elected candidate is in some way not quite fully pope, or that Benedict XVI is still pope or that the real pope is Mr Smith two doors down the road who was elected by a conclave of five and a half laypeople and his Auntie Mildred's cat. Also unwelcome: abusive rhetoric about the man who is also Pope. This is, after all, my blog. Just don't waste your time. Spend it praying for our Holy Father Pope Francis.
    Posted by Fr John Hunwicke at 10:34 No comments:

    1. Except for one thing, he isn't a sedevacantist.

    2. I do not know that, but I can see that you don't follow Fr Hunwicke's example in not enabling the comments of sede-vacantists or their fellow travellers on this blog. Think about that one, Tanced.

    3. Maybe when you run this blog, you can decide who gets to comment?

    4. I gotta say's a real violation of valid judgement for a scholarly priest or a layman just copying/pasting this from elsewhere;
      "Bergoglio is Pope. He's not my own favourite pope, but he's Pope. Vicar of Christ. Successor of the Prince of the Apostles. Capable of being the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church's own infallibility and of binding all our consciences were he manifestly to fulfill the immensely careful conditions laid down by the admirable decree Pastor aeternus of Vatican I."
      Were Francis misguided, or delusional enough to pronounce some of his more outrageous statements or agenda as "ex Cathedra" teachings, I still doubt if faithful Catholics would bow and accept it if it were a complete break with Catholic tradition.
      Bergoglio isn't my favorite Pope either....I admit he is Pope, even though there is very strong, verified evidence that a "mafia of Cardinals" had him elected. I'm not sedevacantist, but I admire their stand for Catholic tradition.
      What I'm trying to say, is if Francis did make a formal statement in conformity with our Catholic tradition..." Capable of being the mouthpiece of the Catholic Church's own infallibility and of binding all our consciences were he manifestly to fulfill the immensely careful conditions laid down by the admirable decree Pastor aeternus of Vatican I." then sure, everyone would accept and obey him.
      But if he were he to do it with the intent of departing from ancient Catholic tradition (like saying he was going to suppress the Latin Mass for good), or state that divorced and take communion, or that homosexuality is not a sin but an accepted union, etc., or any other departure from the Faith, which he and his people have hinted at....all good Catholics no matter what their office or state, are duty bound before God to reject him and his agenda.
      Did you ever see old film clips of the "red Guards" during the Cultural Revolution in China (1966-76), waving their little red books and screaming and crying for Chairman Mao no matter what he said or did? He ordered the destruction ofChinese traditional thought and religion, and the destruction of thousands of Buddist and Taoist monasteries and temples...and his Red Guard did it. He orders the killing of hundreds of thousands of scholars of the Chinese tradition and people who loved their culture....and the Red Guards killed them.
      Everyone read the little red book and memorized the teachings of Chairman Mao.
      He departed from Chinese tradition and culture and tried to destroy it, and his gang ran roughshod over those who objected....those who wanted to keep tradition.
      But now Mao is gone and discredited, and the Red Guard are reviled and a hated part of Chinese history.
      The Catholic Church does;t have a leader like Mao, whose every word is idolized...but Francis' people are trying to make it so.
      I accept Bergoglio as Pope, like it or not...but this business of throwing up loyalty to the Pope etc. for what Francis is trying to do is gonna backfire bigtime. There's a conclave just around the corner, and what Francis stands for may be gone in a heartbeat.
      Damian Malliapalli

    5. Really, Damian? A designer Catholic Church and Magisterium would be acceptable to you but damn anything that might disturb you?
      You keep pipe-dreaming that Francis will be succeeded by a genuinely traditional Pope who will eradicate any residual evidence that Francis and his papacy ever existed and that a golden age of restoration will begin. Get used to this, Damian, the next Popes will follow exactly the same path of reform as Francis has begun and people of insight understand this. If there is a return to the nostalgia show put on for forty years by JP II and Benedict. the Church will vanish.

    6. You must be gifted with miraculous powers to see the future so clearly.

  7. There is no sedevacantism.
    Bénédict XVI was forced out under "huge pressures (enormi pressioni) from inside and outside the Vatican.There is no doubt on this, thanks to the testimonial of his friend Mgr Luigi Negri. The pressures are still heavily bearing on him so that he declares: "Everything is fine, I resigned freely through my own will".
    Therefore his resignation was invalid: He remains the only valid Pope and Bergoglio is an usurper.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. John C: Are you a hog or do you do the wash?