On September 9, 2000, the Argentine bishops made a historic mea culpa for mistakes made at different times in the country’s history.
In
particular, they apologized for wrongs committed during the period of
violence that took place between the 1966 Argentine Revolution and the
end of the military dictatorship in 1983.
The bishops admitted that Church leaders had taken positions which “injured democratic freedoms.”
They
asked forgiveness for the “silences and for the effective participation
of many of their children in so much political disagreement, in the
violation of freedoms, in torture and denunciation, in political
persecution and ideological intransigence, in struggles and wars, and
the absurd death that bloodied our country.”
But
23 years after that request for forgiveness — and 40 years since the
end of the dictatorship — there are still questions about the Church’s
role in that period of Argentine history.
Because
of those questions, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio in 2012
advocated for the opening of the bishops’ conference archives for the
victims and relatives, and for subsequent study.
In
2013, after he was pontiff, Pope Francis also asked for the opening of
the archives at the apostolic nunciature in Buenos Aires and the Holy
See.
The opening of these files has
resulted in a three-volume book: “La Verdad los Hará Libres: La Iglesia
Católica en la Espiral de Violencia en Argentina 1966-1983” — “The
Truth Will Set You Free:The Catholic Church in the Spiral of Violence in
Argentina 1966-1983.”
The book was
produced by the Argentine Catholic University, at the request of the
bishops’ conference, to clarify the role of the Church in the country
during the spiral of violence between 1966 and 1983.
That volatile time saw alternating military and civilian governments with coups d'état,
guerrilla movements, and state terrorism. The Church was divided during
that period — with bishops, priests, and laymen in the country
supporting diverse figures vying for leadership – from guerrilla
movements to military dictatorship.
The
first volume of the series discusses Church history in Argentina after
Vatican II. The second includes a detailed historical analysis of the
role of the Church in the dictatorship. The third - which is scheduled
for publication at the end of the year - will offer an interdisciplinary
series of essays that interpret the involvement of the Church in the
violence of that time.
The preface of the
book, signed by the executive commission of the Argentine bishops’
conference, states, “This search for truth moves us to ask for
forgiveness ... Although the people who make up this collegiate body
today are not the same as then, we are aware that, in many decisions,
actions and omissions, the Argentine bishops’ conference did not rise to
the occasion.”
Ricardo Albelda, academic secretary of theology at UCA, is one of the researchers and authors behind the book. He told The Pillar
that it originates in a 2012 letter from the Argentine episcopal
conference, entitled “La fe en Jesucristo nos mueve a la verdad, la
justicia y la paz” — “Faith in Jesus Christ moves us to truth, justice
and peace.”
In that letter, Albelda said,
the bishops said they “feel committed to promoting a more full
[account] of these events, in order to continue searching for the truth,
in the certainty that it will set us free.”
“The
Argentine episcopate believes that such an investigation is a pending
debt that must be settled with Argentine society, since there is no true
social fraternity without memory, truth, justice, freedom, social
charity, and peace,” Albelda told The Pillar.
Peronism and dictatorship
Much
of contemporary Argentine history has been dominated by Peronism, an
ideology that arose with the presidency of Juan Domingo Perón, an
Argentine general who came to power in 1946 and tried to establish a
third way between Soviet communism and American capitalism through a
nationalist and populist movement.
Perón
was widely popular in certain sectors of Argentine society, but he had a
complex relationship with the Church. He has also been criticized for
protecting Nazi war criminals, limiting freedom of expression in the
country, and exiling, imprisoning, and torturing hundreds of
dissidents.
Perón was overthrown in 1955
and his party was banned. His departure from power led to several years
of political instability, during which governments of different
military factions followed one another, and elections of dubious
legitimacy were held.
Argentina has
suffered from political violence ever since. But in 1966, a new coup in
the country, which would become known as the Argentine Revolution,
brought the tension and violence to a new level.
“The
1966 coup was mainly due to the question of what to do with Peronism,”
Albelda said. While Peronism had been outlawed, it was experiencing a
surge of popularity in the public square.
“In that environment, the ecclesiastical hierarchy was still shellshocked by the conciliar renovation” Albelda added.
There
was confusion within the hierarchy as to how to deal with church-state
relations. “[The bishops] willingly accepted a military regime that not
only recognized the Church's doctrine as a source of legitimacy, but
also intended to restore [its] leading role,” Albelda told The Pillar.
The
military regimes of the previous decade had been proposed as transitory
regimes. But the Argentine Revolution sought to impose an authoritarian
bureaucratic state, which led to the dissolution of political parties
and increased social tension and political violence in the country.
In that period, the so-called puebladas began — popular insurrections in different parts of Argentina, with guerrilla groups rising throughout the country.
New
elections were eventually organized in 1973. Héctor José Cámpora, a
faithful Peronist, was elected president. He allowed Perón to return
from exile and then resigned from the presidency to organize new
elections, in which Perón was elected president.
Shortly
thereafter, however, in July 1974, Perón died of a heart attack. His
wife, María Estela Martínez de Perón, who had been his vice president,
then took power.
Martínez’s presidency
was marked by challenges from guerrillas, armed movements and military
groups. She was overthrown in a 1976 coup, led by Jorge Videla, then
commander-in-chief of the Argentine Army.
Videla’s
dictatorship was one of the darkest stages of Argentine history,
leading the “National Reorganization Process” which resulted in
thousands of people missing or murdered — while official estimates are
approximately 8,000, many experts count as many as 30,000 missing during
the period.
Among those killed was
Blessed Enrique Angelelli, bishop of La Rioja, who was assassinated in
1976. Angelelli was declared a martyr and beatified by Pope Francis in
2019.
The Malvinas War in 1982 and an economic crisis led to the collapse of the dictatorship, resulting in free elections in 1983.
The Catholic Church in the ‘spiral of violence’
The
relationship between the local hierarchy and the Argentine dictatorship
is complex. In the beginning, the bishops were often timid in speaking
out.
While some Argentine bishops
immediately condemned Angelelli’s assassination, there were notable
voices failing to speak up. Archbishop Raúl Primatesta of Córdoba, who
was president of the Episcopal Conference, defended this silence by
suggesting that the bishops must be “wise as serpents,” saying that
"there is a time to speak and a time to be silent."
Angelelli’s
assassins had arranged for his death to look like a car accident. Yet
the local Catholic media did not discuss the strange circumstances of
his death. And Cardinal Juan Carlos Aramburu of Buenos Aires suggested
that it was inappropriate to refer to his death as a murder, saying, “To
talk about crime you have to prove it, and I have no argument in that
regard.”
Another individual murdered in
the spiral of violence was the anti-communist Catholic philosopher
Carlos Alberto Sacheri. He was shot by members of a guerrilla group
while leaving Mass with his family in 1974, supposedly for having
denounced Marxist infiltration in the Church.
Some Argentine bishops have requested
Sacheri’s beatification in response to Angelelli's. To this day,
Angelelli's beatification remains controversial, due to his sympathies
with leftist groups during the dictatorship.
These
murders are just a small sample of the complexity of the situation in
which the Church found itself in Argentina at the time.
As
a result, the authors of “The Truth Will Set You Free” have emphasized
the need for an investigation to clarify the role of the Church in the
violence of those years. Despite the bishops’ repeated requests for
forgiveness, the authors have noted that there remain many unanswered
questions.
While various research has
been conducted on the role of the Church in Argentina’s violence,
Albelda said the current work being done by Argentine Catholic
University is unique.
It considers many
different voices in its search for what really happened, and it involves
collaboration by experts in history and theology, he said. It is also a
thorough report, examining each of the actors of the Catholic Church at
the time.
In addition, he said, the
current research includes consultation with the archives of the bishops’
conference, as well as various departments of the Holy See, including
the Secretary of State, the Council for Public Affairs of the Church and
the Apostolic Nunciature.
The
Church’s initial silence in the face of the atrocities committed by the
Argentine dictatorship - including grave violence against bishops,
priests and Catholic laity - created an impression of complicity or fear
among the hierarchy.
Shortly after the fall of the dictatorship, criticisms of the Church began to arise.
“A
self-assessment by the Argentine bishops emerged more clearly towards
the end of 1983,” said Father Luis Óscar Liberti, SVD, one of the
authors of the UCA research. Liberti directs the pastoral theology
department and serves as research coordinator at the UCA’s faculty of
theology.
However, he noted that the hierarchy did not remain completely silent during the dictatorship.
“The
bishops had issued relevant and critical documents of the methods used
in the [government’s] ‘anti-subversive fight,’ and they responded to the
requests of victims that came to them,” he told The Pillar.
Archbishop
Primatesta, who had led the nation’s episcopal conference, argued that
it was not fear or complicity that motivated the bishops not to speak,
but rather a desire not to add to the confusion or disorder that could
have resulted in national chaos.
“We have acted solely out of love for our people and as we understood each time that it was better,” he said.
Soon
after the dictatorship fell, the bishops’ conference permanent
commission met in December 1983, to discuss “the need for the military
vicariate to be able to account for its pastoral activities during the
“Process,” Liberti said.
“This concern
had various grounds, such as the fact that at the 69th meeting of the
permanent commission — on December 15, 1982 — in which it was pointed
out that: «apparently there have been many chaplains who have told the
military that what they were doing was mostly fine,'" Liberti added.
“The
bishops also acknowledged that their cordial relationship with
government authorities had generated an image of complacency,” Liberti
said
Still, the bishops believed the was
some nuance to their position. The executive commission added in 1983
that “the appraisals are not unanimous, since for some we have been
‘hard’ with the military, not sufficiently acknowledging them for having
saved the country from the guerrillas, communism or chaos, for others
we have acted in justice, for others we have been timorous.”
Perhaps
the most emblematic case of complacency with the dictatorship was that
of Adolfo Tortolo, archbishop of Paraná and military vicar, who was
president of the bishops’ conference between 1970 and 1976. As military
vicar, he was an important interlocutor between the armed forces and
then-President María Estela Martínez de Perón. Later, he would become
Videla's confessor.
“[Tortolo] was more
close and knowledgeable regarding the actions of the Armed Forces and
the problems of the ‘conflicted consciences’ that the military chaplains
transmitted to him regarding the illegal procedures that were being
carried out [by the dictatorship],” Liberti toldThe Pillar.
“Tortolo
was concerned about the possibility of the advent of a Marxist
government and offered his protection to the Government of the Armed
Forces at the time of the coup and afterward,” Liberti said.
“He
also showed himself to be more ideologically involved in the paradigm
struggle within the country than his successors. [However, he also]
acted with moral conviction when it came to pointing out excesses in the
methods implemented by the state in the ‘anti-subversive fight’.”
While
his role as military vicar and Videla's confidante likely meant that
Tortolo had greater knowledge than the average bishop about human rights
violations during the dictatorship, Liberti noted that from the
available documentation, it is not clear what the exact level of that
knowledge may have been.
That the Church, in general terms, welcomed the 1976 coup did not help either.
However, for researchers, that situation is also more complex.
The
threat of Marxist guerrilla groups, coupled with the devastated
economy, an increase in violence and disappearances, and the failure to
establish a social pact, supported the conviction that the new military
regime was the only way out of the crisis at the time, said Albelda.
He
noted that was the case not only within the Church, but also among
business leaders, trade unions, politicians, and much of society.
The Vatican’s response
The Holy See’s denunciations of the dictatorship were typically much more explicit than those of the Argentine bishops.
Thousands
of Argentinians disappeared during the dictatorship. While many were
presumed to have been killed, their bodies did not appear. Videla
himself confessed that he did not carry out public executions for fear
of Pope Paul VI's opposition to them. In addition, leaders of the
dictatorship did not want to leave a trace of bodies, so that homage
could not be paid to them.
On October 28,
1979, John Paul II denounced the Argentine dictatorship during his
Angelus prayer, while the Argentine bishops were making their ad limina visit.
“On
the occasion of the meetings with pilgrims and bishops from Latin
America, especially from Argentina and Chile, the drama of lost or
disappeared persons is frequently recalled,” the pope said at the time.
“We
pray that the Lord will comfort those who no longer have hope of
embracing those they love,” he said at the Angelus, calling for “
precise details on the situation of the prisoners and that, in all the
circumstances where the law is to be respected, a strict commitment be
made to respect the natural and legal person, even those who are guilty
or accused of having violated the law.”
Liberti
explained that “the Holy See recommended other forms of denunciation
and action [as well], but the leaders of the bishops’ conference did not
adhere to the recommendation.”
This is
not to say that the bishops’ conference privately approved of the
dictatorship and its actions, Liberti clarified, since the conference
did denounce human rights violations, although always in private
dialogue with the military rather than public denunciations.
“This is one of the clearest shortcomings that we found in the investigation,” he said.
The role of Jorge Bergoglio
Father
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ, who would later become Pope Francis, was
superior of the Jesuits between 1973 and 1979 and then Rector of the San
Miguel Jesuit Seminary in Buenos Aires until 1986.
In these positions, Bergoglio played an important role in the Church.
In
fact, perhaps the best internationally known controversy between the
Church and the Argentine dictatorship is the case of the Jesuit priests
Francisco Jalics and Orlando Yorio, who were kidnapped by the Argentine
navy in May 1976. They were found October 24, abandoned and drugged in a
field.
Jalics and Yorio had drawn
suspicion from the regime for alleged sympathies with subversive groups,
although they always claimed that they were persecuted for having moved
to the district of Rivadavia, where they lived among the poorest of the
poor on the outskirts of Buenos Aires.
Bergoglio,
knowing of the threats they faced, had consulted with the superior
general, Pedro Arrupe, to move them to a safer community—but Jalics and
Yorio opposed it and decided to remain in Rivadavia.
In
their months of captivity, little was known about the priests. The
apostolic nuncio in Argentina, Pio Laghi, said the priests were presumed
to have been murdered. Laghi said he had spoken to Videla about the
situation, and was told that “he could not explain the disappearance of
the two and that he did not know where they were being held.”
The
situation led some to be suspicious of Bergoglio, including suspicions
that resurfaced after his election as pope. Some rumors even suggested
that he had tried to expel Yorio and Jalics from the Jesuits for
opposing leaving Rivadavia, something that was proven to be false. Yorio
long blamed Bergoglio for the situation, saying in a 1999 interview
that he did nothing to free them, although Jalics said shortly after
Francis was elected that Bergoglio was not guilty of the kidnapping.
“It
is striking that, if [Bergoglio] was accused from the left of
collaborating with the dictatorship, from the right he was accused of
collaborating with Marxism,” Albelda told The Pillar.
“In
the investigation it is clear that Pope Francis used the instruments at
his disposal to save many lives: seminarians, priests and students
close to the Argentine Jesuit world managed to survive thanks to his
actions,” he added.
“Particularly in the
case of Francisco Jalics and Orlando Yorio, the investigation shows how
Bergoglio promptly informed all members of the Society of Jesus, the
Archbishop of Buenos Aires and the apostolic nuncio Pio Archbishop Laghi
of their disappearances; then, based on information obtained [which
pointed to the Navy as one of the possible perpetrators of their
disappearances], he met twice with Adm. Massera [responsible for said
force] and with the then-president of the nation Lt. Gen. Jorge R.
Videla, interceding on their behalf.”
