Each person did what they could. There were heroes. I can speak of what was closest to me: doctors, nurses, priests, nuns, laypeople who gave their lives. Some of them died. I believe over sixty of them died in Italy. One of the things we saw during this crisis was people giving their lives. Priests also did a great job, in general, because churches were closed, but they would call people over the phone. Young priests would ask elderly people what they needed from the market or they would buy groceries for them. I mean, crises make you show solidarity, because everyone is going through the same crisis. And we grow from that.

- Many people thought that the pandemic was setting some limits: to extreme inequality, to the disregard of global warming, to exacerbated individualism, to the malfunction of political and representation systems. However, some sectors insist on reconstructing the conditions previous to the pandemic.

- We cannot go back to the false security of the political and economic structures that we had before. Just as I say we don't come out from a crisis the same as before, we come out either better or worse, I also say we don't come out from a crisis on our own. It is either all of us or none of us. Expecting just one group to come out from the crisis alone, it may be a salvation but it is a partial, economic, political salvation, for certain sectors of power. But that is not leaving the crisis behind entirely. You will be gripped by the choice of power that you made. You have turned it into a business, for example, or you have grown stronger culturally from the crisis. Using the crisis for one's own profit is coming out from the crisis in a wrong way and, above all, it is coming out from it on one's own. We don't come out from a crisis on our own, we need to take risks and take each other's hand. If we don't do that, we can't come out from the crisis. So, that is the social aspect of the crisis.

This is a civilization crisis. And it just happens that nature is also in a crisis. I remember a few years ago I received several Heads of State from countries in Polynesia. And one of them said: "Our country is considering buying land in Samoa, because we may not exist in 25 years time, since the sea level is rising". We may not be aware, but there is a Spanish saying that could make us ponder: God always forgives. You can rest assured that God always forgives, and we, men, forgive every now and then. But nature never forgives. It pays us back. If we use nature for our profit, it will bear down on us.

A warmed up world prevents the construction of a fraternal and just society. We have the crisis, the pandemic, the notorious Covid. Back when I was a student, the "corona" viruses would give you a cold, at most. But then they began to mutate and we have seen what happens. It is so curious this thing about the viruses mutations, because we are facing a viral crisis, but also a world crisis. A world crisis in terms of our relationship with the universe. We are not living in harmony with the creation, with the universe. We slap it ever so often. We use our strength in a wrong way. Some people can't imagine the danger in which humanity is right now with this global warming and this abuse of nature.

I will tell you a personal experience: in 2007 I was part of the committee that would draft the Aparecida Document, and Brazilians would bring proposals regarding the protection of nature. "What are these Brazilians thinking"?, I wondered back then, as I didn't understand anything of these matters. But I have woken up, little by little, and then I felt I had to write something. Years later, when I traveled to Strasbourg, President François Hollande sent his Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, who was Ségolène Royale, to welcome me. And she asked me: "Is it true that you are writing something on the environment"?. When I said yes, she said: "Please, have it published before the Paris Climate Conference". So, I got together with scientists again, and they gave me a draft. Then I got together with theologists and they gave another me draft. And so I wrote Laudato Si. It was a demand to make the world aware that we are slapping nature. And nature will pay us back. It is paying us back.

- The encyclical Laudato Si warns that we often speak of ecology, but separating it from the social and development conditions. What would those new rules be, in economic, social and political terms, in the middle of what you have defined as a civilization crisis and with an Earth that, on top of everything, says "I'm done"

- Everything is connected, it is harmonious. It is impossible to think of humankind without nature and it is impossible to think of nature without humankind. Just like that passage in Genesis: "Grow, multiply and fill the Earth". Filling the Earth is being in harmony with it, to make it fruitful. We must have that vocation. The indigenous people from the Amazon rainforest use an expression that I love: "living well". They have a philosophy of living well, which has nothing to do with our Argentine concept of "having a good time" or with the Italian dolce vita. To them, living well is living in harmony with nature. We need an inner option for people and counties. A conversation, let's say. When people told me that Laudato Si was a nice environmental encyclical, I replied "No, it is a social encyclical". We cannot separate the social and the environmental aspects. The lives of men and women take place in an environment.

I think of a Spanish saying, I hope it is not too vulgar: "He who spits toward the sky is spitting on his face". This is what abusing nature is about. Nature will pay us back. Again: nature never forgives, not because it is vengeful, but because we set in motion processes of degeneration that are not in harmony with our being. A few years ago, I was stunned to see a photograph of a ship sailing over the North Pole for the first time. A navigable North Pole! What does this mean? The ice is melting because of global warming. When we see these things, it means we need to stop. And young people perceive it the most. We, elderly people, have worse habits. We say "it's not just a big deal", or we simply don't understand.

- Do you believe that this frustration in young people is, in part, what leads them to be seduced by political extremism and hate speech?

- The process of a country, its process of social, economic and political development, needs continuous reassessment and continuous clashing with others. The world of politics is that clash of ideas and positions that purifies us and makes us move forward together. Young people must understand the science of politics, of coexistence, but also of the political struggle that cleanses us of selfishness and carries us forward. It is important to help young people in that social and political commitment, and also to protect them from being duped. Although, I do believe the youth of today are more sharp. Back in my days, we were so easily duped. They are more awake, they are brighter.

I have a lot of faith in the youth. “Sure, but they don’t show up to Mass”, a priest may say. And I reply that we must help them grow and be by their side. Then, God will speak to each of them. But we need to let them grow. If young people are not the protagonists of History, we are done for. Because they are the present and the future.

- A few days ago, you spoke of the importance of intergenerational dialogue.

- Regarding that, I would like to underline something that I always say: we need to reinstate the dialogue between the youth and the elderly. Young people need to dialogue with their roots and the elderly need to feel that they are leaving a legacy behind. When young people spend time with their grandparents, they receive sap, they receive things to carry forward. And when the elderly spend time with their grandchildren, they get hope. There is a line in one of Bernárdez’ poems, I forget which one, that says: “What the tree has in bloom is nourished by that which is buried”. He does not say “flowers come from the underground”. No, flowers are up there. But the dialogue between them, what we take from our roots and carry forward, that is the true meaning of tradition.

There is a quote by composer Gustav Mahler that had an impact on me: “Tradition is the guarantee of the future”. It is not a museum piece. It is what gives us life, as long as it makes you grow. Going backwards is something different: that is unhealthy conservatism. “It has always been done this way, so I won’t take a step forward”, they say. This topic may need further explanation, but I am sticking to the essential: the dialogue between young people and the elderly being the true meaning of tradition. It is not traditionalism. It is tradition that makes you grow, that is the guarantee of the future.

- Back in 2014, you already maintained that the world was entering a Third World War. Today, reality seems to confirm your prediction. Is the lack of dialogue and listening an aggravating factor for the current situation?

- The expression I used back then was “a World War in pieces”. The conflict in Ukraine is very close, so we are alarmed, but let’s think of Rwanda 25 years ago, or Syria the last 10 years, or Lebanon with their infighting, or Myanmar at this moment. What we are seeing today has actually been happening for a long time. Unfortunately, war is daily cruelty. War is not about dancing the minuet, it is about killing. And there is an entire structure for the sale of arms that favors it. A person who knew a lot about statistics once told me, I can’t remember the right numbers, that if arms were not produced for a year, we could end world hunger.

I believe it is time to rethink the concept of a "just war". A war may be just, there is the right to defend oneself. But we need to rethink the way that concept is used nowadays. I have said that the use and possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. Resolving conflicts through war is saying no to verbal reasoning, to being constructive. Verbal reasoning is very important. Now I am referring to our daily behavior. When you are talking to some people, they interrupt you before you have finished. We don't know how to listen to one another. We don't let people finish what they are saying. We must listen. Receive what they have to say. We declare war in advance, that is, we stop dialoguing. War is essentially a lack of dialogue.

When I visited Redipuglia in 2014, a World War I Memorial, I saw the age of the dead and I cried. That day I cried. Some years later, on 2nd November, I visited the Anzio War Cemetery and when I saw the age of those dead boys, I cried as well. I’m not embarrassed to say it. Such cruelty! And during the commemoration of the Normandy landings, I thought of the 30,000 boys who died on those beaches. Troops were ordered to storm the beaches, as the Nazis were waiting for them. Is that justified? Visiting the military cemeteries in Europe helps it dawn on you. 

- Have the powers in the world changed? Has the weight of some institutions been modified?

- I don’t want to universalize. I’ll put it this way: some distinguished institutions are in crisis or, even worse, they are in a conflict. Those in crisis give me hope for possible progress. But the ones in a conflict are busy resolving internal problems. At the moment, we need courage and creativity. Without those two things, we won’t have international institutions that can help overcome these very serious conflicts, these death situations.

- But you are leaving your mark. We can see the stamp of the Latin American church?

- That is true.

-How did this perspective make the changes we are seeing possible?

- The Latin American Church has a long history of being close to the people. If we go over the episcopal conferences -the first one at Medellín, then Puebla, Santo Domingo and Aparecida-, they were always in dialogue with the people of God. And that really helped. It is a popular Church, in the real sense of the word. It is a Church of the People of God, That was altered when people could not express themselves and it ended up becoming a Church of trail bosses, with pastoral agents in command. People began to express themselves more and more about their religion and they ended up becoming protagonists of their own story.

Rodolfo Kusch, an Argentine philosopher, is the one that best understands what a people is. I highly recommend reading Kusch. He is one of the greatest Argentine brains. He wrote books on philosophy of the people. In a way, this is the experience of the Latin American Church, although there have been attempts of ideologization, such as the use of Marxist concepts in the analysis of reality by Liberation Theology. That was an ideological exploitation, a path of liberation -let?s say- of Latin American popular Church. But there is a difference between the peoples and populisms.

When one sees in Salta, the "Misachicos" (TN: Misachicos are small processions organized by families or groups carrying the image of a saint, typical of the Argentine Northwest.) coming down 2 miles to participate in the patronal festivals of El Milagro, there is a religious entity there that is not superstition, because they identify with it. The Latin American Church has grown a lot in this sense. And it is also a Church that has been able to cultivate the peripheries, because that is where one can see true reality.

-Why does true transformation come from the periphery?

-I once heard a philosopher during a conference that really grabbed my attention. Her name was Amelia Podetti and she said: "Europe saw the Universe when Magellan arrived at the South". That is, from the largest periphery, Europe understood herself. The periphery makes us understand the center. You may or may not agree, but if you want to know what the People feels, go to the periphery.

Existential peripheries, not just social ones. Meet with the elderly, with children, go to the neighborhoods, go to the factories, to universities, go where there is a day-to-day struggle. That is where the People is. Those are the places where the People can express itself with more freedom. This to me is key. A politics from the People that is not populism. Respecting the values of the People, the rhythm and wealth of a People.

-These last years, Latin America began to show alternatives to neoliberalism, based on the construction of popular and inclusive projects. How do you see Latin America as a region?

-Latin America is still on that slow path of struggle, the path of San Martin and Bolivar’s dream of unity for the region. It has always been a victim and it will be a victim until it completes its liberation from exploitative imperialisms. All countries are dealing with that. I don’t want to mention any in particular because it is so obvious that everyone can see them. San Martin and Bolivar’s dream was a prophecy: the unity of all the Latin American People, beyond ideologies, in sovereignty. This is the challenge to achieve unity in Latin America. Each People must feel one with its identity and, at the same time, in need of the other’s identity. It is not easy.

-You suggest a path based on certain political principles.

- There are four political principles that help me, not just on this issue but even to solve problems of the Church. Four philosophical, political or social principles, as you like it. I will mention them: "Reality is superior to the idea"; that is, when you choose idealism, you have lost. It is about the reality, touching the reality. "The whole is superior to its parts"; that is, always seek the unity of the whole. "Unity is superior to conflict"; that is, when you prioritize conflict, you damage unity. "Time is superior to space"; notice imperialisms always try to occupy spaces and the People's magnanimity is to initiate processes.

These four principles have always helped me understand a country, a culture or the Church. They are human principles of integration. Other principles are more ideological, of disintegration. But reflecting on these four principles really does help a lot. 

- The world has become increasingly inequitable and that also reflects on the media, in the form of corporate concentration, digital platforms and social networks that are increasingly powerful in terms of discourse production. In that context, what, in your opinion, should be the role of media?

-I think of the principle "Reality is superior to the idea", and a book by philosopher Simone Paganini comes to my mind. He is a professor at Aachen University and in this book he speaks of communication and the tensions that exist among the author of a book, the reader and the strength of the book itself. He believes tension grows, both in communication and when reading a book. And, in communication, that is key. Because, somehow, communication has to create a healthy kind of tension, one that makes the other person think and leads them to respond. If this doesn't occur, it is merely information.

Human communication -and she speaks of journalists, communicators, whatever- must participate in the dynamics of that tension. We must be aware that communicating means getting involved. And we need to be aware of the need for getting involved appropriately. For example, there is the issue of objectivity. I communicate something and I say: "This thing happened, I believe this other thing". That is me taking a risk and opening myself to other people's response. But if I communicate something by pruning it and I don't say I'm pruning it, I am being dishonest because I am not communicating a truth. It is impossible to communicate objectively because if I am communicating it, I will put my sauce in it. That is why it is important to make the distinction "this thing happened, and I think this other thing". Unfortunately, nowadays, the "I think" leads to a distortion of reality. And this is very serious.

-In several occasions you have spoken of the sins of communication.

-The first time I spoke about this was at a conference in Buenos Aires, when I was archbishop. I spoke of the four sins of communication, of journalism. The first one is misinformation: I say what is convenient for me and I don’t say the rest. No, you have to say everything, otherwise it is misinformation. The second sin is libel. They make up things and sometimes they may destroy a person. The third one is defamation, which is different from libel, but it takes place when they bring back a thought that a person had a long time ago and this person has changed. It is equivalent to show the dirty diapers from babyhood when a person is a grown up already. The person was a baby and thought that way. Now they have changed, now they are different. And for the fourth sin I used the word coprophilia, that is, a taste for feces, a taste for filth. That is, they seek to smear, when they seek the scandal for the scandal’s sake. I remember Cardinal Antonio Quarracino used to say: “I don’t read that newspaper, because when I open it, blood gushes out of it”. It is the taste for what is dirty, what is ugly.

I think the media should be watchful not to fall into misinformation, libel, defamation and coprophilia. Their value is in expressing the truth. I say the truth, but it is me who expresses it and I add my own sauce to it. But I should make very clear which part is my sauce and which part is objective. And I transmit that. Even though sometimes in the process of transmission, honesty gets lost a little bit along the way: with word of mouth transmission, you go from Little Red Riding Hood running away from the wolf who wants to eat her, to -after the process of communication- a feast in which Grandmother and Little Red Riding Hood are eating the wolf. It is important to be careful so communication does not change the essence of reality.

-Many media, by prioritizing their interests, clear the way for an agenda based on the globalization of indifference. This concerns which issues the media decide to bring to light or to conceal, for various reasons.

-Yes. Sometimes, when I think of the media that unfortunately do not fulfill their mission, when I think of these aspects of our culture in general, of our global culture, aspects that harm society, a line comes to my mind, a line from a tango that may seem pessimistic but it is true: “Go ahead, come on! It’s all the same. And in the furnace we will meet again”. [TN: The quote belongs to “Cambalache” by Enrique Santos Discépolo] I does not seem to matter what is true and what is not. It does not matter whether a person wins or loses. It is all the same. When the media adopt that philosophy, it is disastrous because they generate a culture of indifference, of conformity, of relativism that harms us all.

- Very often technology is assigned a life of its own, as if it was responsible for doing wrong, over and beyond the use made of it. How can we recover humanism in such a technological world?

- An operating room is a place where technology is used in every detail. However, new technologies are used in surgical interventions with utmost care. Because there is a life at stake. The guideline should be as follows: technology must always bear in mind that it is dealing with human lives. One must think of an operation room. That is the kind of honesty one must always have, even in communication. There are lives at stake. We cannot act as if nothing happens. 

Some people are not going to like what I am about to say: there is a capital at the Vèzelay Abbey, I can't remember if it was done around the year 900 or 1000. You know that, in medieval times catechesis was done with sculptures, with capitals. People would look at them and learn. This capital in Vèzelay really moved me: it is Judas hanging, the devil pulling him down and, on the other side, a good shepherd carries him on his shoulders with an ironic smile on his face. This teaches people that God is greater than your sin, God is greater than treachery. Don't despair over the mistakes you have made, there will always be someone to carry you on their shoulders. That is the best catechesis about the person of God, God's mercy. Because God's mercy is not a gift, it is Himself. He cannot be any other way. When we present a stern God, full of punishments, that is not our God. Our God is full of mercy, of patience. God never gets tired of forgiving. That is our God. Not the one we priests sometimes distort.

-If society listens to God and to that People that is often unheard, do you believe we can construct a different discourse, alternative to the hegemonic discourse?

-Yes, of course. Hegemony is never healthy. I would like to talk about something before we finish: in our liturgical life, in the Gospel, we find the flight into Egypt. Jesus is forced to flee, with His mother and father, because Herod wants to kill Him. The Magi and all that story. When we think of the flight into Egypt, we often think they went in a carriage, very peacefully on a little donkey.

Well, two years ago a painter from Piedmont thought of the drama of a Syrian father and his son and said: “That is Saint Joseph and his child”. What that man suffers is what Saint Joseph suffered back in those days. That is the picture hanging over there, which he gave me as a gift.

One learns in life to be universal, to be charitable, to be less bad. I believe that everybody is good. I mean, I see a man who has walked, who chose a path, with its highs and lows, and many friends who helped him along the way to keep on walking. In my life, I never walked alone. There were always men and women, starting with my parents, my siblings -one of them is still alive-, who were by my side. I don’t think of myself as someone lonely, because I’m not. A person who walked his life, who worked, who decided to be a priest, who did what he could. I can’t imagine thinking about it any other way.

-And how would Bergoglio see the Pope?

-I don’t know. I think deep down he would say “Poor guy! The life that befell you!” But being a Pope is not so tragic. One can be a good shepherd.

-Perhaps he would see you the way we see you: he would discover you.

-Yes, maybe. But it never occurred to me to ask myself that question, to go there. I’m going to think about it. 

- Do you feel that you have changed much as a Pope?

- Some people tell me that things that were seeds in my personality have bloomed. That I became more merciful. In my life, I have had strict periods, in which I was too strict. Then I realized that that is not the way. One needs to know how to lead. It has to do with the paternity of God. There is a very beautiful Neapolitan song that describes what a father is, and it says "Father knows what is going on with you, but pretends not to know". A father knows he must wait. He knows what is going on with you, but finds the way for you to figure it out on your own. He is waiting for you as if nothing happens. That is one aspect of Bergoglio of which I would be critical, during a period of his life, not always. As a bishop I was more benevolent. But in my days as a Jesuit I was very stern. Life is very nice in the style of God, knowing how to wait, always. To know, but to play the fool as if you didn't know, and letting the other person grow. That is one of the most beautiful wisdoms of life.

- You look very well, Francis. Does Pope Francis have a long way ahead?

- That's up to Him to decide.

“Unity is superior to conflict” is the third principle. In his words, “when you prioritize conflict, you damage unity”.

“Time is superior to space” is the fourth principle, which allows Pope Francis to explain the way “imperialisms always try to occupy spaces and the people’s magnanimity is to initiate processes”.

When defining them, Pope Francis likes to categorize them as “four philosophical, political or social principles”, as he recalls that they have always helped him “to understand a country, a culture or the Church”.

“They are human principles of integration”, he concluded, “while other principles are more ideological, of disintegration. I choose these.”

The second sin is libel, that is, a false accusation that “sometimes may even destroy a person”, Pope Francis said.

The third one is defamation, an action such as “bringing back an old thought of a person who has now changed, disregarding that the person is different now”, in words of the Pope.

For the fourth sin, Pope Francis used the word coprophilia, that is, “a taste for filth that seeks to smear by means of scandal”.

“The media -concluded Pope Francis- should be watchful not to fall into misinformation, libel, defamation and coprophilia. Their value is in expressing the truth”.

Pope Francis also revealed his own personal path of awareness that concluded with Laudato Si, the 2015 encyclical in which he warned about the increasing harm to nature due to humankind’s irresponsible actions. “In 2007 I was part of the committee that would draft the Aparecida Document, and Brazilians would bring proposals regarding the protection of nature. “What are these Brazilians thinking?”, I wondered back then. But I have woken up, little by little, and then I felt I had to write something”, he recalled.

“Some time later”, he added, “when I traveled to Strasbourg, President François Hollande sent his Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, who was Ségolène Royale, to welcome me. And she asked me: ‘Is it true that you are writing something on the environment?’. When I said yes, she said: ‘Please, have it published before the Paris Climate Conference’. So, I got together with scientists again, and they gave me a draft. Then I got together with theologists and they gave me another draft. And so I wrote Laudato Si.”

“It was a demand to make the world aware that we are slapping nature. And nature will pay us back…It is paying us back”, he stated.

Also, Kusch established an essential difference between Spanish verbs "ser" and "estar" (the two Spanish translations for the English verb "be"), clarifying that the experience of "ser" goes back to 16th Century Europe, while "estar" comes from pre-Columbian cultures. Kusch believed that moving away from nature was a way of destroying it.

From Kusch's point of view, Latin American philosophy could only emerge from the Latin American cultural individual. According to this reasoning, he believed that there could not be a genuine Latin American philosophy, because its basis had been born in another cultural environment.

For this reason, he proposed that it was fundamental to bring to the forefront the Latin American culture expressed by the people, in order to capture an authentic philosophy.

"I start from the thesis that the question regarding popular thinking conceals the possibility of a thinking of one's own", explained the philosopher "that best understands what a people is", as Pope Francis defined him.

  Indigenous and popular thinking in America, originally published in 1970, is the only of his books that has been translated into English and published in 2010.

 

Aparecida: This document is the result of the V General Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America and the Caribbean (CELAM), which took place at Aparecida, Brazil, in May 2007. Then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was chosen to lead the committee that would draft the concluding document. In nearly 300 pages, including an opening speech by Benedict XVI, the text delves into Latin America's new social order, based on the dignity of humankind and justice, with equity and solidarity as essential values.

Encyclical Letter Laudato Si': It is one of Pope Francis' fundamental books, a call to action to help humankind understand the importance of caring for what His Holiness defined as "our common home" and the way in which the destruction caused by our civilization impacts on people and the environment. It was presented on 24th May 2015, two years after being chosen Pope. "May our struggles and our concerns for this planet never take away from us the joy of hope", the encyclical concludes. Its nearly 200 pages, which summarize Pope Francis' philosophy and thinking, can be read at the Vatican Library.

Francisco Luis Bernárdez: (1900-1978) Argentine poet and civil servant. Bernárdez included Catholic themes in his work, in a lyrical tone. The words quoted by Pope Francis are the last lines of a sonnet that begins with the words "If to recover what I recovered" and is included in the book Cielo de tierra (1937). Together with Leopoldo Marechal and other artists, he was part of Convivio, a group of Catholic artists (visual artists, poets, architects, philosophers and historians) that was active between 1927 and 1947, approximately. He wrote for Proa and Criterio magazines, among others.

Gustav Mahler: (1860-1911) Austro-Bohemian composer and conductor, born in what is now the Czech Republic. Along with Richard Strauss, Mahler was one of the greatest exponent of late Romanticism. He composed nine symphonies, which are considered masterpieces, especially the Ninth Symphony, a deeply personal composition that he finished before his death. Mahler believed his music was best enjoyed in liturgical silence, yet considered tradition to be "the preservation of fire, not the worship of ashes", a quote often paraphrased by Pope Francis.

Siegmund Ginzberg: (1948 -) Philosopher and journalist, born in Istanbul into a Jewish family who moved to Milan (Italy) in 1950. He worked for many years as correspondent for "l'Unità", a newspaper connected to the Italian Communist Party, living in China, Japan, the United States and France, among other countries. Ginzberg is author of Sfogliature (2006), Risse da stadio nella Bisanzio di Giustiniano (2008), the novel Spie e zie (2015) and the essay Sindrome 1933 (2019), in which he analyzes Hitler's ascent to power. Sindrome 1933 is one of the books that Pope Francis recommended to Pedro Sánchez, current President of Spain.

Amelia Podetti: (1928-1979) Argentine philosopher, writer, essayist and university professor, Podetti was one of the most influential intellectuals of the Peronist group Iron Guard. She was editor-in-chief of Hechos e Ideas magazine. Her book La irrupción de América en la historia (1981), an analysis of the ways in which the discovery of the Americas changed not only the international scene but the world itself, delves into her ideas on the "peripheries", a subject that interested then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio.

Simone Paganini: (1972 - ) Born in the North of Italy, he studied theology, philosophy and History and is currently a professor at Aachen University. He worked as research assistant at the universities of Vienna and Innsbruck and at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He is author and researcher of several publications and books.

"Cambalache": Pope Francis quotes a few lines ("Dale que va, todo es igual, que allá en el horno se vamo' a encontrar") of "Cambalache", an iconic tango by Enrique Santos Discépolo. Composed in 1934, "Cambalache" was performed for the first time by the end of that same year at Teatro Maipo in Buenos Aires, sung by Sofía "La Negra" Bozán.

* Translated by Lucía Balducci