It was a bit like something out of a bad film about the Cold War. In a La Stampa article last week. Andrea Tornielli, dubbed by the Financial Times and others as the Pope’s “favourite journalist”, linked opposition to Francis to Vladimir Putin.
Under the headline: “Catholics who are anti-Francis but love Putin”, Tornielli and his co-author Giacomo Galeazzi adopted a conspiratorial tone: “The glue that holds them together is their aversion towards Francis. The world of Francis dissenters ranges from Lefebvrians who have decided to ‘wait for a traditional Pope’ before renewing their communion with Rome, to Catholic regionalists who compare Francis to his predecessor Ratzinger and promote the campaign ‘Benedict is my Pope’.”
The article went on to identify the different categories of “dissenters”, who include intellectuals and ultra-conservatives. It concluded abruptly with a quote from a sociologist who said: “Russian foundations that have strong ties with Putin co-operate with the anti-Francis opposition.”
The article notably singled out Antonio Socci, an Italian journalist who once wrote a book questioning the validity of Francis’s election. While being critical of the Pope, Socci has also praised Putin, which may shed some light on the articles’s preoccupation with the Russian president.
To give the piece a little more context, Tornielli has co-authored a book with the Pope while being privy to some enviable Vatican scoops. He is considered by some to be so close to the Holy Father that they even refer to him as a “papal mouthpiece”.
The veteran American Catholic commentator Phil Lawler said the article was disturbing: “Those who have questioned public statements by Pope Francis are seen as ‘enemies’, not as loyal critics.”
As Tornielli has access to people in high places, Lawler suggested that the article was bound to reflect what the Italian journalist was hearing from his contacts in the Roman Curia. “If that is the case, then some of the people surrounding Pope Francis believe that the Pontiff is the victim of a budding conspiracy,” Lawler concluded.
But while the Pope may have a considerable number of “enemies”, he also possesses some fierce friends. This is not unusual for a charismatic leader widely regarded as a reformer.
But are the Pope’s friends being overly paranoid about the influence of Francis’s so-called enemies? Not necessarily, according to Vatican observer Fr Mark Drew, although he suggested that the term “enemy” might be an overly dramatic one.
“At the beginning, Ratzinger’s enemies would have seen Bergoglio as their friend and nowadays only some of them do,” Fr Drew said. “The impression I get from Rome is that there is a very widespread dissatisfaction with the Pope in the Curia, and almost everybody now, including the people who were anti-Ratzinger, are now fed up. Even the ones who don’t really care about doctrine – the careerists – are fed up. They’re fed up because of the total chaos and they’re fed up because the traditional career route is all up in the air.”
The Pope, then, has alienated different groups for different reasons, and it’s not all about ideology. Fr Drew explained: “Even loyal servants of the Church who are not ruthless careerists find themselves very sidelined, because everything that’s happening is happening between a very small group of people, some of whom aren’t even members of the Curia… Francis is definitely a very unpopular Pope in the Curia and I would say now in the Italian Church, certainly.”
The Italians’ reservations seem to be shared by some leading churchmen in Europe: the Council of Episcopal Conferences of Europe (CCEE) recently elected conservative Cardinal Bagnasco as its president – a decision seen by some as a snub for Pope Francis.
So does the La Stampa article illustrate how Pope Francis feels about his enemies? His biographer Paul Vallely observed: “All popes have critics, some of whom may regard themselves as opponents or even enemies. It’s hard to say whether Pope Francis has any more than the previous two popes. But what is clear, from what he said before and after the two synods, is that he encourages freethinking and does not seem terribly bothered by those who disagree with him. By telling people to speak with parrhesia [boldness] he has actively encouraged disagreement.”
But the question remains: why does Tornielli insist that the Pope’s critics are united in their admiration for Putin, when his only clear example is Socci?
One possible answer is that the Russian president has become the cartoon villain of much Western debate. And since Putin seems to be presenting himself as the defender of a conservative vision of “Christian civilisation”, the La Stampa article damns the Pope’s critics by association. Those who oppose the Pope, it implies, are not especially principled: they are merely reactionary. Just as Putin has allied himself with the Church for political reasons, the Pope’s critics are also politicians at heart who care more about power than the Good News.
That is the implication of linking the Pope’s critics to Putin. But unless a real connection can be shown, such claims will fail to convince the sceptical.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.