Pope Francis Challenged Me

I'm glad he did.

When Pope Francis passed away, I was genuinely saddened. To lose one’s pastor is no small thing. The Roman Pontiff is very often the face of the Church and a point of reference for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. His portrait adorns parish walls, his photo is found on holy cards, his name is said at every mass, and people hang on his every word, whether it be an interview or an encyclical. There is no question that the pope is a figure of incredible importance in our everyday faith. I don’t particularly like the meme that we should strive to be “medieval peasants” who hardly even know the name of the pope. For one, that just isn’t historically accurate, and for another it’s just not the reality of life as a Catholic. For better or worse, the pope really does have a role to play in the lives of ordinary believers.

When I was a boy, I knew next to nothing about Catholics; all I knew was that they were Mary worshipping alcoholics. I couldn’t have told you who the pope was. Technically I have been alive for four popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and now Pope Leo XIV. But I have no memory whatsoever of JPII or Benedict, and I really wasn’t aware of Francis for almost the entire first half of his papacy. Only when I began to look into Catholicism did I start to know who the pope was. I have only ever known and experienced the Catholic Church with Pope Francis at the helm. So, when he died, it was an odd feeling. I could hardly fathom another man, another name, another face as pope, even if I knew from an intellectual perspective that Francis was in fact the 266th Bishop of Rome.

From the beginning, I found myself struggling with Pope Francis. The media would report him saying things that I identified with progressives. Certain Catholics made it out as if Francis was a full-blown heretic, intent on overturning the Church’s traditional teachings. Others went so far as to say he wasn’t pope at all. It is hardly necessary to collect a list of examples for these things. Initially I didn’t know what to make of it all. But it did implant in me a distrust of Francis, and a reflexive suspicion towards all he said.

Over time, I began to read his own words, read reliable reporting, and hear different opinions. Though I came to recognize that Pope Francis was oftentimes misquoted or misinterpreted, the difficulties persisted. His teaching on the death penalty, his stance on mass migration, his harsh restrictions on the Latin Mass, his weak responses to the German bishops and their “Synodal Way,” and many of his personnel decisions were some points that I never found very agreeable. Pope Francis never struck me as the most competent administrator, nor did he seem to take a conciliatory and unifying tone with those who did not fall on the same side as he did, whether it be liturgically, politically, or theologically. His handling of Rupnik was one of the more egregious cases where I simply couldn’t see a good excuse for what he was doing (or not doing). Traditiones Custodes and Fiducia Supplicans are difficult documents, the former restricting the Latin Mass and the latter elucidating the procedures for blessing those in irregular and sinful relationships. I don’t believe either contains outright errors, but that doesn’t mean they were prudent or provided clarity on the complex issues they aimed to address. I could go on about other actions he took that I did not agree with or see much good in.

Despite all this, Francis was the Holy Father. He was the Supreme Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, the successor to Saint Peter. He was my pope. I had sworn loyalty to him at my confirmation.

The difficulties were accompanied by more positive moments. Francis taught many things that reinforced and enriched what I already knew. He also taught things that pushed me outside of my comfort zone in a good way. I’d like to give a few examples.

In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis identifies the key mission of the Church as evangelization, rooted firmly in the person of Jesus Christ. Moreover, he urges us to live joyfully for the Lord and to proclaim the Gospel in ways that are truly impactful and reach those who need it most. He emphasized that each believer is called to be a missionary. In Laudato si’, Francis broke new ground by providing teaching on ecology and the environment, as well as other modern phenomenon. This is one of those documents that initially made me uncomfortable but was ultimately good for me. Growing up in a conservative America culture, this encyclical caused me to re-examine certain issues and aspects of our culture. While it may not be necessary to affirm every aspect of Francis’ assessment of climate change from a scientific point of view, it is absolutely necessary to recognize that the earth and ecological systems are important to human flourishing, and that we have an obligation to care for God’s creation. This enclyclical also provided an opportunity to question and critique various aspects of modernity like consumer culture and technocracy, some of which do not receive as much attention in Right Wing circles because they are identified with Leftist politics. It is good to include a few excerpts from this letter:

60. Finally, we need to acknowledge that different approaches and lines of thought have emerged regarding this situation and its possible solutions. At one extreme, we find those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change. At the other extreme are those who view men and women and all their interventions as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited. Viable future scenarios will have to be generated between these extremes, since there is no one path to a solution. This makes a variety of proposals possible, all capable of entering into dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive solutions.

75. A spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable. That is how we end up worshipping earthly powers, or ourselves usurping the place of God, even to the point of claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot. The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over the earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns the world. Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.

His comments on technology in this letter are also very interesting and important:

106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves. It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that “an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed”.

107. It can be said that many problems of today’s world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.

In Dilexit Nos, which I believe is his best encyclical, Francis spoke at length in a beautiful way about the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The second paragraph of that letter is particularly profound:

The symbol of the heart has often been used to express the love of Jesus Christ. Some have questioned whether this symbol is still meaningful today. Yet living as we do in an age of superficiality, rushing frenetically from one thing to another without really knowing why, and ending up as insatiable consumers and slaves to the mechanisms of a market unconcerned about the deeper meaning of our lives, all of us need to rediscover the importance of the heart.

In his Apostolic Exhortation Christus vivit, which is addressed to young people, Francis offers what I believe to be very valuable and relevant reflections:

35. Let us ask the Lord to free the Church from those who would make her grow old, encase her in the past, hold her back or keep her at a standstill. But let us also ask him to free her from another temptation: that of thinking she is young because she accepts everything the world offers her, thinking that she is renewed because she sets her message aside and acts like everybody else. No! The Church is young when she is herself, when she receives ever anew the strength born of God’s word, the Eucharist, and the daily presence of Christ and the power of his Spirit in our lives. The Church is young when she shows herself capable of constantly returning to her source.

36. Certainly, as members of the Church, we should not stand apart from others. All should regard us as friends and neighbours, like the apostles, who “enjoyed the good will of all the people” (Acts 2:47; cf. 4:21.33; 5:13). Yet at the same time we must dare to be different, to point to ideals other than those of this world, testifying to the beauty of generosity, service, purity, perseverance, forgiveness, fidelity to our personal vocation, prayer, the pursuit of justice and the common good, love for the poor, and social friendship.

Pope Francis spoke out against a Christianity that would push aside spiritual things as well as a Christianity that would neglect concrete action in the world. In Gaudete et exsultate, he wrote:

100. I regret that ideologies lead us at times to two harmful errors. On the one hand, there is the error of those Christians who separate these Gospel demands from their personal relationship with the Lord, from their interior union with him, from openness to his grace. Christianity thus becomes a sort of NGO stripped of the luminous mysticism so evident in the lives of Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Vincent de Paul, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, and many others. For these great saints, mental prayer, the love of God and the reading of the Gospel in no way detracted from their passionate and effective commitment to their neighbours; quite the opposite.

101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

He also warns that the devil is real, that a supernatural reality exists, and that an oversimplified, purely psychological outlook on evil is a grave mistake:

161. Hence, we should not think of the devil as a myth, a representation, a symbol, a figure of speech or an idea. This mistake would lead us to let down our guard, to grow careless and end up more vulnerable. The devil does not need to possess us. He poisons us with the venom of hatred, desolation, envy and vice. When we let down our guard, he takes advantage of it to destroy our lives, our families and our communities. “Like a roaring lion, he prowls around, looking for someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8).

I apologize for including such lengthy quotes, but I believe it is necessary to share them for the sake of really understanding the teaching of Francis as they really are, and not how the mainstream media presents them.

Having shared the good, the bad, and the ugly about Pope Francis, it is time to enter into my really substantial reflection on his papacy: Pope Francis was good for me, my faith, and even the Church as a whole. Yes, that same man who so often said confusing or downright contradictory things, that same man who promulgated difficult documents, that man who appointed such questionable men to positions of power.

He was good for me because he made me realize that, at times, I would disagree with others within the Church, sometimes very strongly. I have to contend with the fact that other Catholics may not agree with me on matters of politics or theology. He was good for me because he challenged me to reflect more often on the Church’s obligations to the poor and to those who are not living perfect lives. He pushed me out of my comfort zone and forced me to consider issues and perspectives that were not familiar to me due to my background and leanings. He also had a tendency to call out those vices and habits that I am most often prone to falling into: indifference, pride, judgment, and closemindedness. Francis often spoke out against treating the Church like a museum or something fragile to be protected from those outside; instead, he urged us to be bold, to go out, and to be adaptable without losing our core identity and mission. We cannot be moralists who do nothing but sit around and critique others, nor can we obsess over doctrines and Church history at our desks while neglecting the spiritual life and works of mercy.

But good for the Church? How can I say that? Consider the following.

Who is it easier to pray for: someone who you agree with, who makes you feel comfortable and safe, or someone who is your enemy or who at times causes you pain? Who is easier to obey: a superior who you totally agree with and who you believe can do no wrong (conservatives often treat JPII and Benedict this way), or a superior who is flawed and who even makes decisions we deeply disagree with?

The Church has had an incredible stretch of popes for the last several hundred years. Even Francis, imperfect as he was, hardly comes close to rivaling some of the more vicious and corrupt popes throughout Church history. However, after such a string of excellent popes, it is easy to become complacent and also to begin to see the pope as someone beyond reproach or who must always be agreeable. When we live with a pope who, frankly, disappoints us, I believe that is actually an opportunity to take off the rose-tinted glasses and recognize that imperfect men can be pope; that the pope may not always teach in ways we find easy or agreeable; that not everything he says is even a “teaching” at all, but merely his personal opinion as a man whom we deeply disagree with. Some people overreact to all this by either saying he is not pope, or that he is a heretic and we must resist him. There is much theology to dig into here, but if you do believe he is the pope (I obviously do), then you owe him obedience and respect as a member of the faithful and as a subject of the Supreme Pontiff, regardless of whether or not you like him. We are not obedient to Bergoglio, but to Francis; we are obedient to the Bishop of Rome and his authentic teaching, not to the personality who happens to occupy the See and who gives comments to the media on planes. The Francis papacy was an opportunity for those of us who found the pope’s actions to be difficult to re-affirm our commitment to the Church and to practice the true virtue of obedience (something which may require an essay all of its own).

Though this papacy was by no means easy, and though Francis often challenged me in a variety of ways, I am grateful for it and for him. As we enter into this new era, my prayer is for Leo XIV to challenge us in new ways, to be an improvement in those areas that suffered under Francis, and to continue in those things which Francis excelled at. We need to be sober minded about Leo and avoid making an idol of him while still recognizing his profound importance and our duties towards him. May God bless our new Pope, and may the soul of Pope Francis enter into God’s eternal peace.