The Pope You Never Knew

Final thoughts on Francis.

The idea of Francis as a great liberal modernizer is simply untrue.

---

Today the Conclave of the College of Cardinal-Electors begins to choose Pope Francis’s successor.

The funeral of Francis last Saturday and today’s Mass in the Vatican remind us all again of the mysterious splendour of St Peter’s Basilica and Rome itself. It is indeed the Eternal City. And it is no coincidence that Jesus Christ appeared at the zenith of its power, during the Pax Augustana, or that the two greatest apostles, Peter and Paul, would be martyred within its walls.

I became a Catholic near the end of the reign of Benedict XVI. I will always feel close to him. His notion of the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ is as perfect a diagnosis of the state of our world that you can get.

I read many of Benedict’s books and I recommend, in particular, his Jesus of Nazareth trilogy and his Spirit of the Liturgy. His famous address at the University of Regensburg is also an important modern text that defends the rationality of God and the importance of preserving Europe’s Christian heritage.

I found in Benedict both deep wisdom and deep humility. I was sad when he resigned. It was certainly at odds with the perception of him as an arch-conservative. But this was a perception many would never have believed when he played a role as a theologian at the Second Vatican Council, where the liturgy underwent reform.

I understood, nevertheless. The photographs of John Paul II at the end of his papacy are chilling. He was not well at all. Benedict did not want a rudderless Holy See, particularly at a time of great corruption and scandal.

Still, I am glad Francis died in office. It seems that should be the default.

I recall watching closely the election of Pope Francis. There was a great charisma to him. When he appeared on the balcony and introduced himself as the Bishop of Rome and bowed his head asking for the people’s prayer, it was clear there was something different about him.

I was not sure this was all for the good. Giving up the residence in the Apostolic Palace never made sense to me. The Pope’s quarters there are not lavish and luxurious. Staying in a guest house, where, apparently, a whole floor had to be given up to him, seemed ostentatious in its own way.

Foregoing some of the traditional garments had a similar effect on me. When Benedict wore the furs and the shoes and the hat, it was not a show of Joseph Ratzinger (his birth name), but rather a submersion of his personality into the office. I did not like how Francis’s style led to Benedict’s critics accusing him of a sense of personal grandeur.

This would become a metaphor for what people came to believe was a stark discontinuity between the two Popes.

There seems to be some truth in that. Francis would become famous for his advocacy for immigrants and refugees. He is a strong believer in climate change. (Although people forget that Benedict was known as the Green Pope for his own love for nature and science.)

His statement, ‘Who am I to judge?’ concerning a prelate accused of homosexual liaisons suggested a new tolerance. Then there was the idea to bless people living in homosexual partnerships, the suggestion that perhaps remarried Catholics could receive Communion.

What seemed to motivate Francis a great deal was a kind of residual Argentinian anti-Americanism. Instinctively, he seemed to bristle against both American conservatism and American consumerism. He was not entirely wrong in this. But it seemed to lead him down some strange roads.

Yes, I was disappointed. But Catholics are meant to have a realistic view of the Pope. The first prince of the apostles, Peter, was a famous sinner himself. There have been truly evil Popes. What we are promised is that a Pope would never officially change doctrine, that any Pope would continue to be a sign of unity for the bishops around the world no matter their shortcomings.

The wider world, however, loved Francis unreservedly. Here was a man who seemed to oppose excessive traditionalism and seemingly harsh doctrine. He appeared to be cut more from the cloth of a left-wing, social-justice focused, liberation theology.

We saw this attitude during coverage of his funeral, where journalists usually very non-sympathetic to Catholic moral teaching lauded Francis and his legacy, and hoped for a Pope that continued his crusade and did not revert back to the traditionalism of Benedict XVI…

But, what if all these erstwhile Papists got Francis wrong? What if there was another Francis beneath the mythology, a Francis that was far closer to Benedict in many respects?

A cursory retrospective of some of Francis’s memorable statements might just surprise everybody.

Right to the end of his life, he was describing the idea of sex changes or a gender continuum as the ugliest danger of today:

Here is a greater range of messages from the papacy of Francis:

The homosexual slur snippet refers to him telling a group of bishops that they should not allow men with homosexual habits into seminaries. He said, ‘There is too much faggotry.’ And he said this twice.

There is a deeper subtext here. It has long been believed that much of Vatican corruption is embedded in what some call the ‘Lavender Mafia’, a ‘gay lobby’ in the Church. Francis has affirmed its existence himself. This is him opposing it.

Further to the above statements concerning the existence of hell, the devil, the evils of gender theory, the impossibilities of female ordination or gay marriage, here is what Francis has said about abortion:

On an issue very topical to our time, mass immigration, it was clear Pope Francis had a very different view to politicians decrying open borders, which threaten the fabric of local cultures.

But just how different was it?

When 60 Minutes in the US asked him about the issue in an interview last year, Francis said the following:

Migrants suffer a lot. To close the border and leave them there, that is madness. The migrant has to be received. Thereafter you see how you are going to deal with him. Maybe you have to send him back. I don’t know. But each case ought to be considered humanely.

Some other moments may surprise.

He spoke out vehemently against pornography:

Sexual pleasure, which is a gift from God, is undermined by pornography.

He upheld the ban against Catholics becoming Freemasons.

He was vehemently against the legalisation of recreational drugs, stating that addiction is an evil, and there can be no compromise with evil.

I enjoyed him rebuking pilgrims and priests for using their cellphones at Mass, describing it, as he did transgenderism, as a very ugly thing.

Francis was not as open to the idea of allowing the old Latin Mass to continue alongside the vernacular forms as Benedict was. But at the same time, he explicitly described himself as being in total agreement with his predecessor in declaring that the vernacular liturgy should always be celebrated with decorum and with fidelity to the forms outlined by the Church. He criticized priests who allowed eccentricities, abuses, and strange creativity into the Mass.

He also stated clearly the core Catholic doctrine of Jesus Christ as the only saviour:

Christ alone is the way to life and salvation… You cannot enter eternal life any way other than Jesus.

Let me spell out something very clearly. Francis was far more of a traditional, doctrinally-focused leader than anybody else on the world stage during his papacy. Yes, than anybody else.

He made mistakes. Some were serious. Yes, at times he was unclear. That remains disappointing. But I cannot, obviously, judge his soul. I dare not.

What I do know is that he did preach the gospel, in all its offensiveness and political incorrectness. He defended the soaring moral doctrines of both the Church and natural law. He demonstrated the great love of Christ in his interaction with prisoners, the disabled, and children.

That is how I will remember him. I hope others do the same.