We Are All Like Pope Francis

The term Latino is a social construction, a pan-ethnic identity that puts under one umbrella several more specific identities. While, the idea of Latino exists outside the United States now, it is still an American creation, and as we have written before, it is a creation that even people of Latin American descent in the United States don’t really embrace. If you ask a “Latino” in the U.S. who has origins in Mexico, what ethnicity she is, the odds are that she will say, “Mexican.” This is not an opinion, but a finding that is backed up by large-scale national research. I would assume that if you asked someone born and raised in Mexico who currently lives there what their ethnicity was, the likelihood of saying, “Mexican,” would go up even higher. It is not true 100% of the time as we can always find exceptions, but most people in the U.S. who have roots in Latin American will use their country of origin as their ethnic identity; most people in their country, also probably think of themselves in terms of their nationality (i.e., Mexicans in Mexico, Guatemalans in Guatemala, etc.)

Latino represents something of a compromise. When Cubans or Puerto Ricans stand as separate groups, they have a more cohesive collective cultural identity, but they lose numbers and power. Banding together allows them to share slightly less, but wield more influence.  Compromises are often about politics and power.

Dr. Alvarez’s post about the new pope focuses on the issue of identity, showing that from a cultural perspective, it is not a real clear case that the new pope is Latino, if at all. His parents were European, Italians who immigrated to Argentina, and he never lived in a multicultural Latino community like the United States where a label of Latino makes more sense.

But with regards to power and influence, compromises are sometimes made and the newly named Pope Francis is a compromise all around. First, he is a Jesuit, an order which itself has a complicated history with the church leadership in Rome. On the one hand, they have been called the church’s “elite troops” because of their role as missionaries, their direct work with the poor, and their commitment to education. On the other, they have been subject to suppression from Rome for activities that are not in line with the doctrines of the church. As recently as seventies, Pope John Paul II struggled with the Jesuits who advocated a liberation theology that sought to give voice and power to the poor, with movements throughout Latin America. Jesuits spoke truth to power and corruption in Latin American governments and in some cases paid for it with their freedom and lives. The then Jorge Bergoglio was the leader of the Jesuits in Buenos Aires when several Jesuit priests were imprisoned for speaking out against the government. It is unclear whether Bergoglio could have done more to protect the priests of his order, but his moderation in dealing with their imprisonment is indicative of his style. Aside from being a moderate Jesuit, almost an oxymoron, he also has ties to Europe and Latin America. For a church that has already shifted to the global south, Latin American and Africa, for its member base, many saw it as an imperative that the new pope would represent this geographical area; again, we see a compromise. While Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Argentina, his parents are Italian-born, allowing Rome to claim ties to his papacy just as Latin America does. Pope Francisco also splits the difference in terms of his theology. He is noted as being humble and committed to the poor, eschewing the extravagance of Rome, living in a small apartment, cooking for himself, and taking the bus; he does this while also holding the conservative line on issues such as gay marriage, the celibacy of priests, and abortion.

Father Michael Garanzini, the current Jesuit leader of the country’s largest Jesuit University, Loyola University Chicago, where both Dr. Alvarez and I attended for undergraduate studies, has noted Pope Francis’s history of moderation. He says that we probably should not expect great changes, but that his selection itself is in fact a great change that relates to many.

Because many people feel that they can claim a connection to Pope Francis, conservative and liberal, Europe and the Americas, and notably Latinos, why would we deny this sense of empowerment? So, perhaps we can decry his moderation as being too conservative, or we can say he is not us, that he is not authentically [insert identity here], but by opening the door to other groups, even a crack, perhaps a new light will shine through.