Appreciating Pope Francis (Part 2)

In my previous post, I wrote about Amelia Podetti's insights into the place of Latin America in society, and how  “The concept of the ‘periphery’ … is borrowed not from pro-Marxist theory…but rather from Beroglio’s awareness of the [The Mind of Pope Francis, 35] change of perspective that arises when one is attentive to what is (seemingly) marginal.” In Podetti's application, that "seemingly marginal" reality was the existence of the American continents, and the unique Latin American culture that developed from the encounter of European and native cultures. 

By definition the “view from the margins” will be different; also, one periphery to the next offers a different take, and all of these together contribute something to the whole. The view from a periphery does not cancel or replace the view from a different perspective; it enhances it (on both sides; there is a mutual growth in appreciation), though ordinarily, voices from the margins were silenced, ignored, or beat into submission. When the peripheries, the voices from outside, are included in a dialogue, all parties (including those peripheries) are enriched with broader understanding; all parties have more to work with in coming to an eventual agreement or course or action.

The meeting of peripheries with a self-identified "center," or the contradictions that can arise when a problem or situation is addressed by groups with varying viewpoints, does not necessarily end in conflict or in the absorption of one party into the other. It can lead to a fruitful resolution when the different perspectives are held in "polar opposition." 

In polar opposition we are not aiming for a simple synthesis, but for a “resolution on a higher plane”; “a mutual interaction of realities (Bergoglio, 1989). 

To seek “a mutual interaction of realities,” as then-Cardinal Bergoglio put it, does not burden us with a ready-made goal, no matter how noble it may seem to one or the other party. Being at peace with polar opposition can allow a solution, a synthesis, to appear that may not occur to any of the conversation partners.

 

Polar opposition is not a form of dualism: not an “either/or,” “yes/no,” or even a synthesis where both parties give in a little to find the middle ground. Not even a little bit.

It is not dialectical opposition (polarization), but a remedy for it: a “rich truth” that holds both ends together in tension (whereas the tendency is always to pick a side).

Polar opposition is the philosophy behind the Catholic “both/and.” Bergoglio got this from his studies of Romano Guardini. In fact, the Jesuit's doctoral dissertation topic was on Romano Guardini, particularly his study of "Contrast" in a 1925 work Der Gegensatz (never translated). The future Pope was also powerfully drawn to the book, The End of the Modern World (another book I have read, and which requires two readings in order to have been read once).

The bottom line Pope Francis drew from this was to affirm the values he finds, and hold them together—in tension—with the values he finds in the opposite side. Imagine the Pope holding a strap or rope that is tightly pulled by one party, and with his other hand, he is holding another strap, being pulled from the opposite direction by another party. The challenge for him is not to let either rope go slack, even though he may have to tilt to one side (say, in matter of doctrine) or the other (for instance, applying social teachings to contemporary issues). If he lets go of either rope, the values represented by those who hold it are lost. 

In common thought, people enter into conversations about difficult matters assuming (at best!): “Each participant may have part of the answer; together we will compromise until we can agree.” This is not how polar philosophy sees things; it is not that each participant will inevitably have “part” of the answer, but that all have values to contribute. A common goal may begin to appear through the process of recognizing the underlying values within the other party’s convictions. Francis urges us to seek “resolution on a higher plane”; both parties have to move, holding their conclusions (not their values) more loosely.

 

In polar opposition, it is essential to MAINTAIN THE TENSION created by the two sets of values. It is the Catholic “both/and” in action.

 

Guardini himself said (in a 1967 interview): “The theory of opposites is a theory of confrontation [face:face] which does not happen as a struggle against an enemy but as the synthesis of fruitful tension... a construction of concrete unity.”

“The essence of this approach is that the other is not seen as an adversary, but as an 'opposite,’ and the two points of view thesis and antithesis are brought into unity.”

 

Pope Francis said: “Romano Guardini helped me… He spoke of a polar opposition in which the two opposites are not annulled. One pole does not destroy the other. There is no contradiction and no identity [no ‘melding’ or melting of one into the other]. For him, opposition is resolved at a higher level… . however, the polar tension remains…. It is not cancelled out. The limits are overcome, not negated. Oppositions are helpful.”

“Guardini aimed to overcome the profound contrast that marked the generation that, emerging from the rubble of World War I, found deep divisions and seemingly unresolvable animosities everywhere.... To Guardini, the polarities of life, the oppositions, are only such when they are not absolutized, when one does not exclude the ‘other’ but presupposes it. Polarity can never become Manichaeism, the reign of contradictions that refuse conciliation”

 (The Mind of Pope Francis, 107). 

 

And so, in politics, “We cannot simplistically divide the country’s people into the good and the bad, the just and the corrupt, the patriots and the enemies of the state” (then-Cardinal Bergoglio).

Inspired by his studies of Guardini, Father Bergoglio began to elaborate a set of principles that guided his pastoral approach ever since. These have now become part of his papal magisterium. In Evangelii Gaudium, the Holy Father introduces these principles of “unity of action” in the context of renewing evangelization; he is really re-launching the Church into a renewed fidelity to its own identity; to a renewed understanding of what it means to be “Church in the modern world” (the name of one of the four key documents of Vatican II). 

 

The four theoretical principles guided him in the incredibly difficult, violent days of the dirty war, when polarization led to unbelievable barbarism, especially on the part of the presumedly “civilized” and civilizing agents of the government. Vile acts of complete disregard for human life were sanitized with the language of a holy war: “Cristo vence” inscribed on the planes that were dumping student protesters alive into the ocean. 

That is the crucible where Bergoglio fleshed out the first three principles for unity of action:

 

·      UNITY is superior to conflict

·      The WHOLE is superior to the parts

·      REALITY is superior to Ideas (added in 1980: This is Pope Francis in a nutshell! He was always and only talking with the person in front of him, so no reports of their conversation can be entirely accurate; they are all “outside” of the original conversation, imposing or presuming contexts that reveal more about the interpreter than about the Pope’s thought, which is seen as if through a periscope.

·      TIME is superior to space (added later, in 1980)

But to keep the polar opposition fruitful, it is not enough to maintain the status quo. Both parties are obliged to listen. And that's the subject of the next post!