Federico Reyes Heroles
Why? asked Ciro Gómez Leyva in Excélsior.
Why did our head of state not attend Francisco’s funeral? Mexico is the second most Catholic country in the world. The majority of votes for the president were from Catholics. The numbers did not convince her. Candidate Sheinbaum visited the Pope during the campaign. She then wore an item of clothing with the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe. She followed Monsiváis: Protestant and… Guadalupano. Fair enough. At the time, she had no reservations on the matter. She was looking for votes.
When Francis died, the president highlighted his criticism of “neoliberalism,” that discursive pandemonium that explains all our ills here, present, and, surely, those to come—the chronic shortage of medicines, the deficient and criminal lack of vaccines, and much more.
Nothing to do with Francisco’s humanism. Because of his criticism of neoliberalism, he was an ally. But days, months, and years go by with a Morena government—anti-liberal—and the problems get worse.
The nuances were missing. Francis criticized neoliberal capitalism as “unjust at its root,” but his approach was very different. In The Joy of the Gospel, Francis alluded to the “globalization of indifference” and directed his criticism there: no, he said, to the new idolatry of money; no to the economy of exclusion and inequality; no to money that governs instead of serving. Irrefutable.
Severe and repeated ethical criticism. Its focus: consumerist individualism. He accused “individualistic and consumerist societies” of generating aggression: “others are competitors.” He called for “a benevolent attitude that supports and comforts others, avoiding all harshness or roughness.” Adam Smith—yes, the great-great-grandfather of “neoliberalism”—called it empathy. Empathy for the sick without medicine, for mothers searching for their disappeared children, for fearful pensioners, and many more.
“We have forgotten how to ask for forgiveness or give thanks,“ he lamented. There are certain parallels between Francis’ thinking and the discourse of the Fourth Transformation. For example, the vindication of indigenous peoples, but what about the treatment of migrants?
“The market alone does not solve everything,” said Francis, very true, nor does the state. In Fratelli tutti, he reaffirmed his positions. There, he criticized companies that concentrate and speculate on power. Not business itself. He advocated for the redistribution of wealth, a universal basic income, reducing working hours, the release of vaccine patents during the pandemic, and the strengthening of global governance. He was criticized for underestimating the benefits of globalization, which have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. But he also severely criticized populism: “Certain forms of welfare are social hypocrisy,” and he pointed to “polarization that impoverishes.” He called them “populist ideological temptations.” He only visited Mexico once, in 2016. John Paul came five times, serving as pontiff for 27 years, an average of once every five years.
Why? asks dear Ciro. Article 24 of the Constitution establishes the secular state and the separation of church and state. It also guarantees freedom of conscience for all. The state is the guarantor of that supreme freedom. The same freedom that, with brutal recklessness, is being endangered by the Digital Agency’s proposal and the cancellation of content and licenses. There they go. Sheinbaum is the representative of that secular state, and perhaps that makes her uncomfortable. Like Daniel Ortega, who declared bishops, cardinals, and popes to be a “mafia.” All power to him and his wife Rosario. Or Chávez, who called them “troglodytes.” Or Castro—baptized, who deported an archbishop and 150 Spanish priests and discriminated against Catholics in public life. The international press highlights the absences: Mexico in first place, followed by Putin, Petro, Boric, Maduro, Netanyahu, and Díaz-Canel. The list is revealing.
Further Reading: