Translation from the German
Obituaries for the deceased often lapse into exaggerated pathos - both in the private and public political sphere. On the occasion of Pope Francis' death, for example, we heard politicians of all colours movingly eulogise the deceased. In particular, his advocacy for a fairer society, for the poor and refugees and for a peaceful world based on solidarity took centre stage. All of this is true in itself and characterises the profile of this Pope.
However, some commentators rightly criticised the fact that and how a politician in this country, who in many ways represents exactly the opposite of this Pope, indulges in such praise: according to ORF, Herbert Kickl is ‘deeply saddened’ because with Bergoglio, the world is losing an ‘outstanding moral authority of our time’, who has ‘stood up for social justice’ and always found ‘clear words against exclusion, poverty and environmental destruction’. This really is a bombshell, coming from someone who is always a stranger to morality when he spreads generalised hatred against migrants and abuses them as an election issue; someone who denies one of Francis' main concerns, the care of the planet, and discredits climate change as the imagination of more or less criminal environmentalists; and who wants people of other gender orientations to be marginalised. His adulation therefore appears to be an embarrassing pandering to a globally popular personality and therefore ultimately - pardon me - populist ‘body snatching’.
However, the justified indignation at this mendacity should not make us forget that the representatives of other political parties at home and abroad have now suddenly discovered an appreciation for the humanity, the unconditional option for the poor and the peace efforts of this pope, even though their policies look quite different in practice: where, for example, is the unconditional devotion of the conservative and ‘Christian’ parties to the poor and socially weakest? Who is sparing the richest in the reorganisation of the state budget and shifting the burden of debt onto the general public and the poorest? Who is acting under the impression of right-wing electoral successes with increasingly restrictive migration policies - in stark contrast to Francis' position? Who is responsible for what can be described as shameful poverty in the wealthiest countries in the world - including in Austria? Who effusively praises the Pope's appeals for peace and at the same time invests more than ever in armaments with the aim of making the country ‘war-ready’?
This double standard is probably the result of a self-critical implementation of neoliberal political-economic logic (an ‘economy that kills’ according to Francis) and something like a ‘habitual humanity’ of these parties that remains without consequences. Especially for parties that see themselves as Christian, self-criticism is urgently needed here. Ultimately, only a radical ‘conversion’ or at least a gradual approach to the guiding principles of socially committed (Christian) humanity, which Francis stood for, would help. Kickl's falsehood, on the other hand, shows what worries many critical Christians today: that the right, and with it fundamentalist groups, are trying to gain more social legitimisation within the framework of religion and the church by ingratiating themselves. These beginnings should also be resisted.
Prof. Dr Josef Christian Aigner
Innsbruck
