The real Pope Francis

I was saddened to hear of Pope Francis’s death after this painful last illness, because (despite what you might read elsewhere) I was never one of his harsher critics.  

I could see he was a man who truly believed in God, in sin, and in evil.  

He was also old-school enough to think that it was worth trying to keep the church from open schism in countries like Germany. 

I also believe that he was more conservative than his (at times gushing) fans could ever accept.

The real Pope Francis was light years away from approving divorce and remarriage, homosexual unions, and the ordination of women.  

The real Pope Francis’ responses to the German synodal way—as it continues to gallop away from the church—were always consistent and corrective.  

But there’s no doubt that Francis wasn’t a liturgist, or a theologian, or even a particularly original thinker. 

Above all, I was always painfully aware of how hard it must have been for him to follow a series of popes who were both intellectual giants and saints.  

We’d had a dream run of popes from St Pius X onwards. The high point was St John Paul II whose pontificate was nothing short of revolutionary for a church deeply troubled after Vatican II.  

John Paul II’s mission of love was known globally—but he also took on the mission of authentically interpreting Vatican II, where he was one of the Council fathers. 

Benedict XVI was also a Vatican II peritus, a lifelong theologian, and a gifted writer and teacher.  

I am less sure about what Francis’ legacy will be. He certainly drove many bureaucratic changes and attempted to speed up the process of child protection and compensation for victims.  

But these changes had a way of stalling. Francis also centralised power to himself far more than his two papal predecessors, both of whom were prudent delegators.  

Sadly, he also had well-documented blind spots about individual clerical abusers which were painful and inconsistent—Gustavo Zanchetta, Juan Barros, Marko Rupnik, and others.  

Francis’ tendency to make excuses for particular clergy abusers began back in Buenos Aires when he was archbishop. But by the end, it started to look like an unhealthy pattern.

Francis also made some truly odd appointments to very senior Vatican positions—Angelo Becciu to the finance office (where he was later found guilty of embezzlement), Gustavo Zanchetta the clerical abuser to oversee the papal funds, and the intellectual lightweight Victor Fernandez to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

But it was in his theological efforts—described by some as “rule by motu proprio”—that Pope Francis really seemed to run aground. The apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia caused more trouble than good; the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes quite possibly ditto.  

The encyclical Laudato Si’ and the apostolic exhortation Laudate Deum were well-intentioned but weakened by opinions inserted as facts. It’s a shame—they could have instead mined the rich vein of authentic Catholic creation spirituality opened by Pope Benedict XVI.  

I thought the Synod on Synodality was the worst kind of time-wasting nothingburger. But over time, I am revising my views.  

That’s because the cry of “synodality” goes both ways. For example, liberal-minded but high-handed bishops who like to trample on the church’s more conservative Catholics are now being forced to consult with them, rather than just their hand-picked Boomer diocesan yes-persons.  

But overall, what has stayed with me throughout this pontificate is my impression that Francis had a limited world view. He seems to have written and taught as if it was still 1958 and Vatican II had never happened.  

I think that some of the problem was that he didn’t read English, or not very much. This left him with some other enormous blind spots, particularly where the church in the United States was concerned.  

Towards the end of his life, his desire to tackle the incoming US government led him to run aground again with his opinions on uncontrolled immigration.

His views were shared too hastily and without sufficient thought—quite probably because he was so unwell at the time he wrote them.   

My brother summed up Pope Francis, I think quite well. “The over-riding feeling I’ve always had of this pope has been his lack of curiosity to find or receive anything new—he has a set of ideas about the world that were formed in mid-century Argentina, and he continues to spend his life within that bubble.” 

“And this contrasts so starkly with the two old ‘reactionaries’ John Paul and Benedict, whose entire ethos was curiosity and engaging with the world and ideas—having the argument, taking on those they disagreed with in a battle of ideas with the world.” 

But hindsight’s a funny thing. I remember in the 1980s how much the media hated Ronald Reagan, portraying him as a senile clown and imbecile.  

Reagan’s legacy has only improved with age, and now he’s appreciated for his courage, intellect, and formidable will.  

So perhaps it will be the same with Pope Francis. His legacy may really shine if our next few popes are truly dreadful.  

But in the meantime, let’s pray for his soul, and that he will find peace at last.