Twelve years ago, when the archbishop of Buenos Aires Horghe Maria Bergolo was elected dad, the world revived. It was new-dad is non-European, dad from the global south. But, the main thing, it seemed that it would be a person who would pose a fallen banner of the beloved world of Pope Voitla. John Pavel II, the indefatigable papa traveler, opened the Catholic world.

[see_also ids \u003d "

Dad-Argentine, as expected, had to take the next step: to give this church that seemed a patchwork blanket thrown on a globe, a sense of real unity-unity of equal and different. The versatility laid down by nature, by the law of heaven and the dogmas of the earth.

Partially these expectations came true. This, for example, concerns the reform of the Catholic Church Management. It seems as much as Curia exists about the “Kuriy Reform”. But it was Pope Bergolo who managed to advance the matter further than the conversation.

However, the long -awaited management reform, the transition from the “Rimocentric” model to the “Cathedral” is to a greater extent interethnic, almost technical issue. The Pope for the world is always more than just " No matter how skeptical we are, we still do not let out the figure in white from sight. This is one of the few (and less and less) figures on the planet whose words mean something for the inhabitants of any part of the world. Universal figure.

Francis expected him to become a preacher of universalism. It will give a convincing example that globalization is not the only possible and not even the right way to overcome conflicts and divisions. Who, if not him, is this emphasized non-Roman dad?

[See_also ids \u003d "

Pope Bergolo really managed to shift the focus from the global north (or in our future - West) as a legislator, administrator, a policeman dictating to the world, to the global south, who pays from other people's accounts - poverty, climatic changes, wars. Dad wanted to become a lawyer of that part of the world, “whose voice is not heard,” whose interests are violated. And he tried, God sees.

But “not to be associated with the West,” distance from the “rich” does not mean “to become universal”. Refusing to be a “voice of Rome”, Pope Bergolo did not become a “voice of the world”. He remained a dad from Latin America - and his origin posted an imprint on his entire pontificate. Both good and for thin. Pope Francis failed to establish relations with the United States. Despite the solid presence of the Catholic Church there, Papa Bergolo was unable to find a common language either with Catholic Biden or Catholic Vance. The major diplomatic success of Pope Francis in the American direction - the withdrawal of Cuba from isolation - was achieved in the interests of the suffering people of Cuba. In the arms of the pope with Fidel Castro there was more heat than in his intonations addressed to any of the American presidents.

In the same way, “foreign” Pope Francis looked from Eastern Europe. Which he did not understand - and did not strive to understand too much. He preferred to move in Kilvater all the same Latin American geopolitical views and traditional Vatican diplomacy aimed (the past five hundred years) to Moscow. It could be assumed that Pope Bergolo was more likely to interfere than his Argentine experience helped. Left ideologies, dictatorships, postcoloniality - everything seems to be " But at the same time completely different. There is nothing worse than the “similar” - it causes the illusion of understanding.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that in the Ukrainian " There is nothing. Even considering that our grievances against Pope Bergolo speaking of us no less than about him. No matter how dad is distanced from Rome, in his attitude to Ukraine, he remained quite in the spirit of the Kurial Ostpolitik. If Pope Bergolo was called the “builder of bridges”, then Ukraine was for him only one of the flights of the bridge thrown from the Gallery of St. Peter's Council to the threshold of the Kremlin. This could be judged not only by the words of the pope, but by business. According to the Havana declaration. Or by the fact that having prescribed a record number of cardinals from around the world, Pope Bergolo suspiciously neatly “bypassed” Ukraine: there was only one representative of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church among the cardinals, and not from Ukraine, but from Australia, but from Australia.

[see_also ids \u003d "

At least on our piece of the world of the world “Universalism” of Pope Bergolo, he had clear boundaries: it ended in the same place as Russian liberalism on the Ukrainian issue. Or, in any case, on the "

In fairness, it is still worth saying that the contribution of Pope Bergolo to our war is currently not easy to appreciate. Vatican diplomacy adheres to the principle of " Even in cases where it seems that this is no longer a door - this is the gates of the Adova. So that through these doors - at least through a narrow gap, at least through a keyhole - it was possible to negotiate. While the dad conducted a blessed speech about the “great culture” and “the great people”, about “the courage of the White Flag” and the “world-blood world”, the Vatican through his “ajar doors” negotiated the transfer of Ukrainian prisoners and the return of the stolen Ukrainian children to the homeland. Everything that was and was not done can be evaluated when the corresponding archives open - and in the Vatican this is a non -construction business. But one thing can be said now: the help of Pope Francis in our war certainly did not boil down to the two Maviki, who became Ukrainian epitaph on the pontiff grave stone. Epitaph full of Hayit.

It was always more important to us what is said, what is what was done. And Pope Francis knew how to say something that not only we-the whole world shed a sink with his mouth open. And then with sympathy he watched how the head of the papal press service dodes on the topic " At the same time, the face of the pontiff himself remained the same serene.

He became famous - and, perhaps, will go down in history - as " Dad sows ambiguity - this is the general voice of his critics. Where until recently everything was clear and understandable where the “natural” and “ugly” was divided by a fat line, where white and black did not drown in shades of gray, Pope Francis, as if playful, let out the fog. Everything became ambiguous. Not only " But also a blessing (but not a wedding) of the same -sex steam. Recognition of the right to be priests for gays. Return to church (t. allow people who are in the second marriage to the sacrament. Ordain women - if not in priests, then at least in deaconis.

But what is interesting: all this is only in words. Dad's speeches have always been radical than his actions. Even if they were supported by business, these were tiny sporadic changes that could not destroy the world or leave cracks on the monolith of church tradition. Pope Francis never had the intention to destroy anything. On the contrary, he seemed to be a very delicate person - too delicate. A person who doubts. And who is struggling to share his doubts with others. Especially with those who are too sure.

[see_also ids \u003d "

Pope Francis, of course, was " Because he sought to be so. As the head of the church, he could reform the church institute. Being a pope, infallible in matters of faith, he could even make adjustments to the dogma.

But Pope Francis was not a revolutionary. He was an apostle of openness. A preacher of the possible. The fact that he was on the air was more topics for reflection than directives. He shared his thoughts, and did not announce the political program. Perhaps with his characteristic modesty, Pope Francis felt like an episode in divine fishing. And tried to find a way to change the world without destroying it.

The figure of Pope Bergolo looks a little ridiculous - which never bored himself - but a little tragic. His desire to sow doubts in order to overcome false uniqueness did not at all coincide with the historical moment. If the world were in a more stable state. If there were no such enormous request for hard boundaries and clear definitions. Requests to simple and straightforward answers. Points over I. The requirements will certainly “choose the side” and “call evil by name”....

But in this world there is no perfect moment. And there is no perfect person - even if he sits in white on the throne of St. Peter. Pope Francis was emphasized by non-ideal.

[see_also ids \u003d "

Calling the dad “ambiguous”, and his speech “ambiguous”, we thereby reproach him. But for the Pope Francis himself, most likely, it was not a rebuke. It was his style. And his goal. There is no unequivocality in love. Love is full of ambiguity. But is there another way to combine \? Is there another recipe for universalism, which we expected from Pope Francis, which we expect from the church and from the world as a whole?