The wonderful interview From Évole to Francisco

I waited several days before pronouncing on the interview of Jordi Évole with Pope Francisco; secondly, to read the comments of the journalists and, thirdly, to have the conclusions of various people with whom I am in relation.

First, it should be noted that the interview had a significant follow-up, with 4.5 million viewers being listened to for one hour; I do not have data from the audience and accumulated peaks, but 22% share in a channel with an average of 7.5%, in peak listening and competition time, means that it has attracted the interest of the people and that it is a televised "event".

Although this is an event, the comments it has made in the media and among critics seem rare and generally cautious, referring to certain aspects of the words of Pope Francis without taking into account the context. Of course, some of these comments were helpful (for example, those of Boyero), but they put more emphasis on how Evole got the interview than on the content itself. It seems to me that the traditional media, which claim to be an inheritance or an influence, have been rude, lukewarm, ungrateful, and suspicious, have downplayed their informative value.

A first conclusion that I propose is that the program seemed to me: "Incredible", for what is unusual and unexpected and for its content and development. Amazing that Évole was raised several years ago to interview the pope and to work hard at conducting the interview. Congratulations for him! More surprisingly, it is that the Vatican and the pope will accept the challenge. There are few precedents, it seems to me that no interview with any pope is alike. The last popes have accepted talks or conversations with believing or non-believing intellectuals or with priests having a relevant journalistic career, always for media with pedigree; Some will say that the usual and other than the most influential and prestigious. But such an open, almost network-less interview to a transgressive TV show is, at least, "amazing."

To pretend that the pope was frivolous, at an uncalculated risk, seems unfounded. It is unlikely that the pope and his environment are unaware of the risks and do not calculate them. On the contrary, they wanted to badume them and play in a field, in principle and under a hostile appearance, to transfer very general and profound messages addressed to the curia and the Vatican government, to his brother bishops (Francisco insists on being considered as a bishop and pastor), the priestly family, his Catholic flock and the general public, including political and social leaders and ordinary people. A lot of homework and too much parish to satisfy everyone, which is an impossible task.

This is why the perplexity that provoked the interview among the most affine and the most surprised among the haves is explained. The first ones tried to minimize the spirit; an extravagance of this left and Peronist pope. And they have noticed what is short, even outrageous, does not include homobaduality, baduality or women's rights. In short, a conservative and simplify a hiding facade.

The pope wanted to talk about immigration with a very clear speech: welcome, welcome, integrate … the walls surround those who build them … Europe is aging and forgets its history. It seemed like the pact of the interview. But the pope did not avoid the other burning problems, those that submerge his pontificate and that concern the government of the Church (internal key), the difference between dogma and customs, the debates of the century and especially the pedophilia, homobaduality in the clergy (including bishops and cardinals), celibacy and the role of women in the church (equal rights and duties). He has not entered them all, but he is holding them to some of them, but they float in his comments, especially when a second interview is made of the interview and the a reading of his transcript is what allows to go into details.

Because this pope (and others) are not the ones who talk about straw smoke or talk, but he is cautious, determined, daring. Francisco knows that his fellow cardinals have chosen to govern and change. They did not choose it as a theologian, nor as a pious person, but rather firm, even astute and determined. This is why he has a declared opposition, organized, financed, that it dismantles gradually, with precise blows, too slow for some and disturbing for others.

According to this pope's speech, not only because of the remarks made in the interview, which are part of his well-known speech that he repeats in the discreet chair of Santa Marta or in the hallway discreet of the plane in which he travels, it is worth mentioning a central phrase. Who am I to judge? He said that months ago, in the plane, he was answering questions about homobaduality. In this response, there is a conviction about respect for others, recognition of difference, that over 80 years with a long life and experiences reveal a reflection and open-mindedness.

Among his answers to unanticipated questions was the renouncement of the crisis in Venezuela, endorsed by the Secretary of State, the diplomats, disappointing for many, striking anyway. Acting on critical aspects such as celibacy and the role of women in church governance, Papa was orthodox, no doubt, no crack, with more poetry than prose. Little reformer. Do not touch now.

More interesting was the reflection on the strategy of change, because this pope came to change, to reform; for that they put it. And his policy is focused on the process of change rather than the complaints presented. The pope says that he does not care what they say, that he did not come to please, nor to occupy the media space, but to fill its objectives, but not too explicit, although it may be intuitive.

Finally, I can not ignore the message to reporters, which is not new, but which lands with the precision of the four risks. Misinformation, slander, manipulation and coprophagia. All are part of the profession's ethics manual, but when they are applied and interpreted, there are divergent trends and practices. The pope is on the strict side.

Some people have been struck by the labyrinthine, almost elementary, commentary on capitalism as a system, which he later described, but Francisco's discourse on this follows from the concept of poverty, because of his evangelical concern for poor and inequality. The very scenario of the interview was defined in its meaning.