Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

VATICAN CITY (RNS) The Vatican swiftly rejected accusations that Pope Francis sided with the brutal Argentinian government in the 1970s when he was a Jesuit leader.


  1. At the moment I would hesitate to judge the new Bishop of Rome, certainly without more information.

    An example from the Anglican Church might help. (I have converted from Roman Catholicism to Episcopalianism.)

    Janani Luwum was an archbishop in Uganda who was murdered by Idi Amin. He is not recognized as an Anglican saint and commemorated at Westminster Abbey as a 20th century martyr. (Others so commemorated include Maximilian Kolbe and Oscar Romero.) However, he interceded with the Uganda police and Idi Amin privately and was criticized for continuing to attend governmental functions:

    Had Amin not had Archbishop Luwum murdered, he would probably have been subject to many of the same criticisms as the new Bishop of Rome.

    • Correction” Archbishop Luwum is NOW recognized as an Anglican saint and commemorated at Westminster Abbey.

  2. When so called journalist do a story such as the one above why don’t you do a real story and interview the two jesuits that were taken prisoner and find out their thoughts on the matter?

  3. There is a double-speak in claiming a superior ought to have shielded unlawful priests from their government. U.S. bishops and cardinals were accused to obstructing justice by shielding unlawful priests. Priest activists are breaking laws (like the Berrigan brothers). So which is correct? To shield or not to shield? An adult man (priest or not) is deemed to appreciate the consequences of his acts: including government punishment. Should your boss intervene in your misdeeds? Should your NFL shield you from penalty? Should your union shield you? Your AMA? Should AAA fight your traffic ticket? WHY should your cardinal shield you from your government?