Among the various reasons, two seem to be decisive: the Local Church’s self-referential precariousness and the many ambiguities of the outgoing government on the Bolivian issue.
Various opinion polls say that in Chile, just 10 days before Pope Francis will visit the country, the empathy for the event is low: actually, very low: 36%. For months the press, various observers and commentators, and not only from Chile, have almost become tired of saying, “People here are indifferent, distant, busy doing other things... irritated with the hierarchy, and the Pope’s arrival isn’t really at the top of Chilean thoughts”. Many people talk about a “very difficult, complex and uncertain, problematic visit”. It is beyond doubt that the Pope, well liked and respected, will be well received and welcomed, but it is also clear that almost no one expects any kind of wonder. In these hours, some press agencies acknowledge feeling relieved for the visit will be short, keeping the event on the right track, and avoiding controversy and/or possible exploitation.
The slow decline that comes from afar
In recent months, there have been various more-or-less plausible and well-argued explanations of this lukewarm expectation, which seems to dominate Chile. The last one, which is very recurrent during these hours, even if not new, being the “economic cost” of the papal trip for the country. There is talk of 10 million pesos (40% borne by the local Church and the rest by the State). Such annoyance would add to many others that have been dragging on for many years and that, in reality, speak and highlight a local church in crisis. And this is the real Chilean question backgrounding Francis’ pilgrimage, 30 years after that of Saint John Paul II.
In short, the alleged indifference for this visit would be a direct and immediate consequence of the relatively low prestige and limited authority of the Chilean Church, in particular of its hierarchy, to which the public opinion now attributes numerous questionable behaviors, with consequent and often fierce criticism. And these are not just criticisms from outside the ecclesial community.
It is important to remember that a few years ago, Pope Francis received in the Vatican a long and articulated letter signed by dozens of Catholic lay people - some of them prominent national figures in various fields of science, culture and art - which pointed out to the Pontiff the most delicate points of the deep crisis of the Chilean church; a crisis that somehow drags on from Pope Wojtyla onwards, and that has at its core the “quality” of the new bishops appointed in the past years.
From the outside, in fact, the Chilean Church appears lacking a goal, self-referential, often on the defensive and not particularly enthusiastic about Pope Francis’ magisterium, not even about those moments and documents which - like the encyclicals Lumen fidei and Laudato si’ or the exhortations Evangelii Gaudium and Amoris laetitia - have given rise, in other churches of the region, to great instances of reflection, analysis and discussion. In the country, the expression “ensimismada”, i.e. “closed in itself”, is often used to describe this church, and that is the very opposite of what the Pope has been asking and desiring for the past five years.
It would be a mistake to believe or hypothesize that the Chilean church is a church contrary to, or critical of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Magisterium. This is not the situation at all, since the problem concerns a sort of state of prostration or convalescence that seems to hegemonize the life of the Chilean ecclesial community that, being strongly clerical, ends up identifying the Catholic community with the whole hierarchy. In Chile, the ecclesial community in its true and authentic meaning is extremely fragile. There are only bishops and priests, especially those who limit themselves to acting as transmitters for episcopal directives, without legitimate and reasonable margins of autonomy, creativity and initiative. In Chile, priests of this kind risk isolation and ostracism due to the overwhelming weight of a certain type of episcopal authority that sometimes has nothing to do with the Magisterium and the ministry of the bishop.
The Chilean Church is a wounded Church. Its many wounds and sufferings are part of a long list: from the difficult relations with Mrs. Bachelet’s outgoing government of (depenalization of abortion, educational reform, civil rights, the “Mapuche” question, just to name a few), to the very serious pedophilia problems, with particular reference to cover-up cases (which would also involve some bishops), to the bishop of Osorno, Monsignor Juan Barros (nominated by Francis and very unpopular for some of the faithful), a generally rather hostile and very critical press of the three local cardinals (Ezzati, archbishop of Santiago in extended regime, Errázuriz and Medina) and the general perception that Chilean Church is a Church out of time and even out of the last dynamics of the universal ecclesial community.
The ambiguities of the Chilean government in its relationship with the Vatican and the Bolivian question
It is true that for months Mrs. Bachelet’s outgoing government has been working hard, and with generosity, for the success of the Pope’s visit, but it is no secret that until recently, Bergoglio’s visit was not desired. The official and formal invitation (through a letter signed by the President) of the Chilean government to Pope Francis for a visit, arrived at the Vatican in the first days of last June. Before that, there had been only talk about such a possibility: a diplomatic way that however, is not sufficient to make an apostolic visit happen. In two different circumstances, the government sent to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, through special emissaries, the proposal of convincing Pope Francis to desist from visiting Chile (in those circumstances the hypothesis was a trip to Uruguay, Chile and Argentina). The bishops were puzzled and embarrassed, because they had already invited the Pope, formally and on several occasions, and they believed that the government agreed.
In short, on the one hand, officially there was talk of a welcomed visit, however, in a completely confidential way, there were attempts to discourage the Pope’s intentions. Why? Because Chilean political parties, with their credibility at stake and at the center of harsh criticism for corruption related reasons and other malpractices, saw the “Bolivian issue”, namely the long-lasting dispute between Santiago and La Paz about the request of the latter for an outlet on the Pacific, come back on the agenda.
It is well known that Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, like all his predecessors has made this request his warhorse also in view of the third re-election and some time ago, surprisingly, he placed the matter under an arbitration of the Hague Tribunal. Chile, which believes in its reasons, accepted immediately. At a certain point, however, for reasons that are not entirely clear (and perhaps linked to internal party politics and personal ambitions), a sort of vicious campaign started from Chile that “accused” Pope Francis of being pro-Bolivia, of being too close to Evo Morales and therefore indirectly “hostile” to the Chilean people. So it was presented by several parties and to be convincing, these accusers, often behind anonymous cover, attributed the Pope words he actually never uttered.
The speech given by the Pope in La Paz, at the Meeting of Popular movements in July 2015, was used by some politicians of both countries, to affirm numerous inaccuracies and give rise to many lies such as the false image of the “Argentine Pontiff being “more friend” of Bolivians than of Chileans”. In this regard, Evo Morales, who for years attributed to the Pope phrases and thoughts that made Francis look as a supporter and sponsor of the Bolivian cause, certainly helped spreading this false and without any foundation type of information.
In the face of all this, there is little to add. The visit and its development is all Pope Francis’ hands who, we are sure, is aware of every reality and despite the odds will be able to pass his message of closeness and affection for the Church and all the people of Chile.
