Lucetta Scaraffia is a historian and journalist. He taught contemporary history at the University of La Sapienza in Rome. From 2012 to 2019 she edited Donne Chiesa Mondo, the monthly supplement of L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See’s newspaper. Huffpost contacted her to comment on the controversy that followed the Pope’s meetings with the families of Israeli hostages and with relatives of Palestinians. The rabbis of Italy criticized him for his “icy equidistance”; Palestinians accused him of withdrawing the word “genocide” in reference to Gaza.
Professor Scaraffia, what is behind this confusion?
“There is always the usual ambiguity that is preferred over a moral and spiritual position that a pope should take. Jesus had said, “Let your speech be yes, yes, no, no,” not “let it be fifty, fifty.” We know it because The Pope behaves like this, he says it again and again: in this way he hopes to be able to play the role of mediator. However, it is a somewhat strange role: intermediaries must first of all have the opportunity to mediate, while they are mediating, you usually have to have something to give and something to threaten. And then the mediators have to be requested by the parties: you can offer yourself as a prospective mediator, but to become one you have to be accepted by both parties, otherwise you can’t mediate “Everything. It is a fact that the Pope does not want to accept.”
Why doesn’t he want to accept it?
“Because this pope tends to be a little self-absorbed. He continues to behave this way because he believes it will help his good image. This applies to the two wars: the one in Ukraine and the one in Israel. As far as Ukraine is concerned, his.” The complete helplessness is evident in the matter of the kidnapped children. The goal here was not to achieve peace, but to mitigate the terrible violence inflicted on Ukrainians. Well, in all this time the Pope has not managed to return not even a single child. And it should be emphasized that he avoided talking about stolen children as it actually happened, defining them instead as “Ukrainian children who want to return to their families.” By expressing himself in this way, he believed he made things easier: today we can say what didn’t help. His attempt at mediation was a failure.”
Do you think that this failure is due not only to errors of principle but also to practical errors?
“Absolutely yes. Cardinal Matteo Zuppi is part of the Community of Sant’Egidio, which has been linked to Russian Orthodoxy for many years. It was a wrong decision from the start. In addition, there is Vatican diplomacy that knows how to do its job: this fact that he is starting to act as a diplomat, that he is sending people (including the wrong ones), is something that is neither in heaven nor on earth and doesn’t work. Zuppi may have made peace in Mozambique, although many doubt it, but a peace in Africa, in an internal conflict, is completely different than a peace between two European countries of this level. Even if one ignores Sant’Egidio’s decades-long ties to the Russian Patriarchate, it is not as if Zuppi would have had such an enviable diplomatic lineage. If we turn to Israel’s war, the problem becomes even more serious.”
Why is anti-Semitism at stake here?
“Israel’s war exposed the deep wellspring of anti-Semitism. The October 7 Hamas pogrom was carried out with the cry of “Let’s kill the Jews,” we all saw that. This has reopened the problem of anti-Semitism across Europe and around the world. It is a problem that affects the church very deeply. The church had great difficulties during the Second World War because it did not defend the Jewish situation vigorously enough. Then it made amends and, with the Second Vatican Council, undertook a complete review of the theology of the Jews in their own history. Above all, it eliminated the completely false idea that Christians were the new Israel, the new chosen people. First with Nostra Aetate, then with Ratzinger it was clearly stated: No, the gifts of God cannot be revoked, the Jews remain the chosen people. This is a very important aspect because it eliminates any possible anti-Semitism and unites us with the Jews: our religion goes back to the Jewish people, who are the chosen people. This fundamental aspect of theology was completely forgotten by Pope Francis, who limited himself to general formulations on anti-Semitism and refused to position the Catholic Church clearly against anti-Semitism in all its forms. Pope Francis should have done that, but he didn’t. In this context, my attention was drawn to a cartoon published in a German newspaper which I found insightful. If you want, I’ll describe it to you.”
Please.
“You see a big bell tower with a bishop on it, and a big minaret with an imam on it, leaning out to shake his hand; In the middle, as an obstacle to this unification, stands a small black Jew, as if he were a stumbling block to the base of the Jewish people. That’s what the Pope seems to think, let’s be honest. There are only a few Jews; they have always been the outlet for all negative impulses. This time too they are made the scapegoat. Because Pope Francis has done a lot to reconcile himself with Islam. Some steps were even a bit risky.”
Like the document on “human brotherhood” signed with Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmad Al-Tayyeb in 2019?
“Exactly. The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar is an anti-Semite who doesn’t hesitate to say it every two minutes. He repeated it after the Hamas attack on Israel: He said, I am for Hamas against the Jews. That’s something.” The Pope shouldn’t have done that. If nothing else happened, after this further anti-Semitic stance from the Imam of Al-Azhar, he could have admitted that he was wrong. As if that wasn’t enough, he is preparing to meet him in Dubai at a climate meeting. Maybe, who knows, he will accept it because they will agree on the climate. We know this much: The Pope is much more committed to the environment than to anti-Semitism. To me, anti-Semitism seems infinitely more pressing for the Catholic Church.”
Would you describe Francis as an anti-Western pope?
“He is a pope who hates Western values. Its anti-Western and, above all, anti-American nature is becoming increasingly clear. In doing so, he forgets that the West is the only part of the world that has tried, albeit in a limited and inadequate way, to realize the values of the Church. This is what Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians (“There is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male or female”) Something has been achieved in the West, but not in other parts of the world.
In a recent interview with La Stampa, philosopher Alain Finkielkraut declared that “Pope Francis is discredited” and described him as “a catastrophe for the Church and for Europe.” What do you think?
“I think it is a catastrophe for the church in Europe and in the world. The church no longer counts, it no longer interests anyone. It has become a matter for journalists to talk about the Pope as if he were an influencer.”
As an influencer, have you given up on playing a moral role?
“He has given up what it means to be pope. He has become an aspiring diplomat, a role he can’t even fill. He is a person who has not understood what is happening in the world, a little blinded by his history and.” His passions are personal. The consequences are very serious: a collapse of the church and the people who follow it. What is strange is that Pope Francis is much more appreciated among non-Catholics who, however, do not even think about becoming Catholics. “
Aside from the two wars, are there any other international issues where the Pope should have intervened but did not?
“Iranian women: for him it’s as if they don’t exist. Just like the Armenians: although he is a Catholic Christian, he doesn’t want to see them, but instead takes the money of their opponents.
What does it refer to?
“I wrote this a few months ago in an article in La Stampa, which has not been denied. The government of Azerbaijan has funded many archaeological and restoration works in the Vatican. In return, the Vatican awarded his wife the highest Vatican honor,” the Azerbaijani president. That’s why the Pope is silent about the Armenians.”
Is there something concrete that is changing in the way the church functions? There is talk of a reform of the conclave that allows for the entry of women and lay people… is it all smoke and fire?
“When it comes to the role of women in the church, Pope Francis is doing absolutely nothing. This is all wrong. The women who have reached the positions in the Vatican are women chosen by the clergy, very obedient, who will not change anything.” There are women’s organizations in the Vatican (such as the UISG, International Union of Superiors General) that are very active and important, but never be consulted or listened to. When women have something to say, they are not listened to. Obedient nuns who always laugh are taken. This is their fundamental characteristic. The only thing Francis could do was establish the diaconate for women, and he didn’t do it. He created a commission that produced a document that was classified as secret. Now he’s doing another job. You know better than me that you’re wasting time running one commission after another.
This year, November 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, is particularly felt after the femicide of Giulia Cecchettin, an affair that seems to move consciousness like never before. Can the church play a role in addressing what has become a real epidemic?
“The Church cannot speak on this issue for one very simple reason: the Catholic world is rife with abuse of religious women, which it hides.”
Is this another mistake you attribute to Francis?
“Absolutely yes. It is an issue that Pope Francis has not even considered. In fact, he protects perpetrators like Rupnik. In the face of this epidemic of femicide, it is better for them to remain silent.”