Even you, Francis?

Mere opinion for opinion's sake doesn't thrill me like an intellectual orgasm. Opinion devoid of foundation cannot be the keynote of any article, even an opinion piece; the foundation of what the author asserts is imperative. It is accepted, however, that a column may adhere exclusively to the intuitive spectrum and offer some credibility to the writing, provided that the recipient of the message can discern the differences that are intended between the two propositions.

I introduce myself in this way because I will not provide any justification for my thematic proposition in this column; I will remain in the realm of impressions with the modest aim of stimulating reflection.

Amidst a notable crisis in the Vatican Curia, a first Latin American Pope of Jesuit origin was elected, specificities that deviated from the expected, from normality, from what was prima facie, from a cursory, intuitive analysis. Persisting through reflection, one comes to understand that the Catholic Church needed a figure capable of moving mountains without removing them from their place, however paradoxical that may prove to be.

The Catholic Church has been losing flocks of its faithful generation after generation, supplanted by other faith propositions more attuned to the new demands of modernity. The credibility that was once maintained by practicing maximum informational opacity has been obscured by the revolution in communication media, which has made the ills of the Catholic Church—I wouldn't say transparent, but has imposed vehemently unpleasant, translucent realities.

While serious misconduct by its representatives had been reported in the past, with the modernization of information, the argumentative subterfuges of denial and maximum exception on the part of the church for its wrongdoings began to prove fruitless before its faithful, as what was opaque became clear and the credibility of a portion of its dogmas gradually began to lose credibility.

A media-savvy Pope is elected, whose biography suggests he may have been complacent with the central power in his country of origin during a time of usurped freedoms. He is shown to be a Pope experienced in the art of adapting to the imposed model, but at the same time capable of deceiving consciences through his, shall we say, populist charisma.

He chose the name Francis with the aim of getting closer to the flock, not abdicating the papal throne, but, in the media, relinquishing some superfluous perks peculiar to the position of Pope, such as a gold ring and other small displays of wealth. He began to opt for breaking protocols in his appearances and in this way began to attract more attentive and curious attention to his future appearances.

His media acumen was notorious in Argentina. Involved in matters of state, Bergoglio gave interviews and mixed politics with faith. Chosen as Pope for, I understand, the reasons listed, he promoted the foot-washing ceremony, which already received extensive coverage from the Argentine media and now attracted the world's attention.

I call for reflection on the reason for choosing prisoners for the purpose of washing and kissing their feet. It made me recall the sad scenes we are forced to witness of venal politicians during political campaigns, when they pick up black children, preferably the dirtiest ones with runny noses, lift them up and give them a warm and long kiss, the same ones who give an olfactory hug to the dirtiest beggar on the street and then, in the next moment, look for the camera with a face dismayed by the present and generous about the future that only they will provide if elected.

It is true that more than one interpretation is possible regarding the Pope's gesture of utmost humility and service in washing and kissing the already properly sanitized feet of pre-selected prisoners. Will the Pope, during his visit to Brazil, make the same gesture with the poor young drug traffickers serving socio-educational measures for homicide? What would be the moral of this story? Why, among billions, does the Pope humbly revere wrongdoers of society? Is it a reward for bravery? For services rendered to society? What is the practical criterion?

In fact, according to legend, this is a practice initiated by Christ and maintained by the Catholic Church in the foot-washing ceremony, where the media is summoned wherever it takes place. There is no record of any Pope having performed this ceremony as Pope, or at least, the media has not been summoned to provide publicity.

The Pope, who appears to be the most populist in the history of the Papacy, seems consequently to be the most treacherous and sympathetic to the artifices of demagoguery, a very peculiar characteristic of the left in Latin America that is in power. Therefore, this may indeed be a way to win over, for example, Brazilians who show themselves to be adherents of these more base means of persuasion. I strongly believe in the maxim that most of the time less is more. Well, this is my impression, unfounded, in no way imposed as "dogma," just a pre-game barroom chat based on factual impressions and conjectures.