Thursday 5th of June 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

pope francis was humble and always supported the abused and the downtrodden....

When a great man and leader of the Roman-Catholic Church – and beyond it – like Pope Francis dies, it may seem almost impious to speak or write about politics. But in his case, we know for certain that it simply means doing what he told us to do.

 

Pope Francis was a great man who committed one terrible failure in the end
The late Catholic leader was humble and always supported the abused and the downtrodden – except in one very sad case...

BY Tarik Cyril Amar

 

For one of his fundamental teachings was that we have a religious and moral – not merely a civic – duty to engage in politics. He made this clear, for instance, in one of his major statements, the 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti (All Brothers). There, he spelled out the pronouncedly broad and political – not merely intimate, small-scale, or private – meaning of the story of the Good Samaritan, one of the most famous parables taught by the founder of all types of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth.

In Fratelli Tutti, Francis stressed that the Good Samaritan story “summons us to rediscover our vocation as citizens of our respective nations and of the entire world, builders of a new social bond” in order “to direct society to the pursuit of the common good.” That is about as far away as you can get from the intellectual platitude and ethical cop-out of religion-is-just-a-private-matter. And that was a good thing, too.

Because, as Francis made clear time and again, he – rightly – saw our world in deep social, ecological, and, fundamentally, spiritual crisis. If you share his belief or not, it is important to understand that political engagement to save this world, for him, was a matter of survival of not just a species and its much-abused planet, but of God’s creation.

There is something else we should remember about this late pope. He was known for being both genuinely relatable – especially with the poor, weak, abused, sinful (his last major meeting was with JD Vance, after all), and troubled – and, at the same time, capable of harsh rebuke and tough determination. Having worked as a bouncer in his youth and later as a Jesuit taskmaster, he knew how to handle the gathering of careerist, vain, pushy, and scheming egos that the higher Church also is.

He was a decent and mostly kind man, but no push-over. And yet, with all his assertiveness, he was also humble, not in an ostentatious but a substantial manner: the kind of humility that makes you give up on many of the lifestyle perks that have corrupted the papacy and instead wash the feet of prison inmates. Or admit that you are not the one to judge, as once when commenting on a priest who was said to be gay.

Think about it: it is true, obviously; and, by the standards of tradition, it is at the same time something sensationally extraordinary for a pope to say about a priest. For, remember, the Roman-Catholic Church, is not a fake democracy – as secular states usually are now – but an unabashed absolute, if elective, monarchy.

Against that background – Francis’s instructions to engage with politics and his fundamental humility – two simple questions make sense: What is the political meaning of his tenure as pope between 2013 and 2025? And where did he succeed and where did he fail?

A full disclosure won’t do any harm either: I am writing about this pope as someone raised as a Roman-Catholic yet now largely lapsed. Largely, because, in reality, with something like a Catholic upbringing, about which I am far from complaining, “there are,” as the Russians wisely say about another experience that shapes you for life, “no formers.” Perhaps, that explains why I have always felt much sympathy for him. Although, come to think of it, that was due to his politics.

Regarding those politics, for starters, let’s note a basic piece of context that, however, is often overlooked: It’s commonly noted that Francis was a multiple first: first pope from Latin America, first Jesuit, first one not from Europe for well over a millennium. But there was yet another important first: even if the Cold War between – very roughly – the capitalist West and the socialist-Communist Soviet camp ended in the late 1980s and Francis became pope in 2013, he was, actually, the first substantially post-Cold War pope.

Counterintuitive as that fact may be, it is not hard to explain it. It was the result of the de facto rule that popes get elected when they are old and likely to be set in their ways and – usually, not always – serve until death. Specifically, once the Cold War had ended, the very Polish and very conservative John-Paul II – a quintessential Cold War pope – stayed in office until 2005. His successor, the not merely conservative but leadenly reactionary Benedict XVI from Germany was, in essence, the Angela Merkel of the Vatican: the one you call when, in reality, everything must change, but you are in obstinate denial about it. And did Benedict fulfill those expectations!

It was really only after rigid Benedict abdicated and, in effect, retired – the first pope to do so in more than half a millennium – that there was an opening for finally moving the Church beyond this sorry state of stagnation. And Francis, once elected to his own surprise, certainly did his best – or, as his many critics and opponents would gripe, worst – to use that opportunity.

Apart from setting an example by his personal modesty – for instance, just two rooms in a Vatican hostel, a comparatively simple pectoral cross, no flashy cape or dainty red slippers, and, finally, orders for a fairly simple coffin, lying-in-state, and burial – Francis tackled major unresolved issues inside the Church, such as finance scandals and corruption, sexual abuse, and the prevalence of rule by clique and intrigue.

On these issues, he certainly did not universally succeed. Regarding child abuse by clericals, his reactions and actions were honest, well-intentioned, and sometimes unprecedented and consequential: as when he, in essence, forced a mass resignation of bishops in Chile and defrocked a truly demonic US cardinal for his revolting crimes and sins. But his record remains mixed. He himself, to his credit, ended up admitting his “grave mistakes” in this crucial area. Victims of clerical child abusers and critics find that his efforts did not go far enough.

Francis could neither defeat nor eradicate the hardy networks, lobbies, and plots of the Vatican and the Church leadership more broadly. In particular, the – surprise, surprise – conservative US cardinals form a powerful, mean lobby. But to be fair, no single person could have cleaned up these Augean Stables. That would take a miracle, one that did not take place under this pope.

Yet Francis did have an impact. His challenge was sometimes fierce, and the resistance it provoked proves that he hit a nerve. This, clearly, is an issue which will be decided, if ever, in the future. In that respect, note that kind, smiling Francis was worldly and tough enough to promote – where he could (an important caveat) – like-minded men to high office. As he installed the preponderant majority of the 135 or 136 cardinals who will elect his successor, his policies might be continued. Yet Church politics is less transparent than the Trump White House and much more complex. Nothing is certain.

Yet what about the world beyond the upper ranks of the Church? That is, after all, clearly what Francis – the pope with a personal cross that depicted Jesus as the Good Shepherd – cared about the most. For practical purposes and to greatly simplify, think of that world-beyond-peak-Church as consisting of two concentric circles: the inner yet large circle consists of currently about 1.4 billion Roman Catholics globally, and the outer, even larger one of everyone else in a world population over 8 billion.

There, Francis pursued two great lines: He clearly sought to finally do justice to the fact that demographically and in terms of commitment and dynamism, Roman-Catholicism’s center of gravity has inexorably shifted away from Europe and, roughly speaking, to the Global South-plus: Latin America, Africa, and Asia, too.  Indeed, over the last half-century, Africa and Asia have been the only two regions where the increase in the number of Catholics has exceeded population growth.

When elected, he immediately pointed out – with a hardly hidden edge, I believe – that his cardinal brothers had plucked him “from the ends of the Earth.” That was a statement in favor of those “ends” and against the breathtaking, institutionally inbred provincialism that has made 80 percent of popes come from tiny Italy. By now, though,  the cardinals who will elect the next pope come from 94 countries and less than 40 percent are from Europe, “with a record number from Asia and Africa.”

This, true globalization of the Roman-Catholic Church in its most fundamental meaning, namely as the community of its members is what Francis was in sync with as no pope before him, not even the globe-trotting John-Paul II. If the Church is wise, it will follow his example; if it is foolish – which, historically speaking, happens a lot – it will revert to Benedict XVI’s futile retreat into the past.

The other major policy Francis consistently pursued was – believe it or not – a form of socialism. Recall that socialism is a broader church than Marxism. Socialists, even by the narrowest, most modern definitions, existed before Marxism. If we widen the lens to ancient history, a certain rebel called Jesus, executed by the indispensable empire of his day, obviously, was one, too.

Francis understood that and stuck to it. That is why The Economist sniffles at what it mislabels as his populist and Peronist leanings. In reality, the last pope was a sharp critic of populism, if understood as, say, Trumpism (or Sanderism-AOC-ism, I would add): the fake appeal to longings for justice solely to control, mobilize, and profit.

The core of Francis’s de facto socialist position was – as The Economist, to its credit, also admits – “scorn for capitalism” or, to quote the Washington Post, another party organ of the global oligarchy – a strong concern for “social justice.” Indeed. And then some. In sum, Francis was not a Marxist. He did not see eye to eye with Latin American Liberation Theology and his behavior during the right-wing dictatorship in Argentina may have been less than exemplary. But, as pope, he was, in effect, a man of the Left. He had the breadth of mind and the strength of character to reject the unfortunate recent hegemony of liberal capitalism in favor of something fairer and more moral, something worthy of humanity. In the dark post-Cold War that we are forced to inhabit, that fact made the Roman-Catholic pope one of the main forces (next to China, intriguingly) – weak as it may have been – of survival of leftwing ideals.

Those tempted to underestimate such influence - as Stalin is reported to have done: “The pope? How many divisions?” - should ask themselves where  his Soviet Union is now (hint: nowhere). And yet the Church is still around.

There was another issue of immense importance for our future on which he stood out by being more honest and more courageous than all too many others: Francis did repeatedly censure Israel’s – and the West’s – brutal slaughter of the Palestinians, using terms such as “cruelty”and “terror” and pointing out that what Israel is doing is not even war, but, clearly something worse.

And yet, those who now claim that he condemned the Gaza Genocide are wrong, unfortunately. I wished he had, but he did not. The fact remains, painful as it may be for those who liked and respected him (such as I), that he failed to take this crucial and necessary step. The closest he came to it was the following, far too cautious statement: “According to some experts, what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. It should be carefully investigated to determine whether it fits into the technical definition formulated by jurists and international bodies.”

That was more than almost any other leader in the “value-driven” West; it was also more than the studious public silence practiced by Pius XII during that other holocaust, when the Germans did not support Jews committing a genocide, as now, but – together with their many collaborators and friends – committed a genocide against Jews. But both are pitiably low bars.

As the pope, that is, not just some political leader but a man with great soft power and extraordinary moral duties by design, he should, as a minimum, have condemned the genocide as being just that and told all Roman-Catholics that not opposing it in every way they can is a grave sin.

He should also have excommunicated co-genocider-in-chief Joe Biden and preening neo-Catholic JD Vance. Pour encourager les autres. Francis did have a steely side. This was where the world needed him to show it most, but he did not.

I like to think he would be the first to admit this fact. Because that is the way he was: great, fallible, and humble.

https://www.rt.com/news/616113-pope-francis-great-failure/

 

“Pope Francis dedicated himself to the service of others… consistently revealing by his own actions how to live a simple, but meaningful life,” the Dalai Lama said in an AFP report. “The best tribute we can pay to him is to be a warm-hearted person, serving others wherever and in whatever way we can.”

Buddhist monks at the main Tibetan temple in Dharamsala were set to hold a memorial service in honor of the Pope, who passed away at age 88. His death resonates deeply with Tibetan Buddhists, many of whom view the Dalai Lama as a figure akin to a pope for their communities across the Himalayas, Mongolia, and parts of Russia.

Penpa Tsering, the democratically elected head of the India-based Tibetan government-in-exile, also paid tribute to Pope Francis, describing him as someone who “embodied the true spirit of compassion and universal brotherhood.”

“In these difficult times, we stand in solidarity with the global Catholic community in mourning this profound loss,” Tsering said. “May Pope Francis’s vision of a more compassionate and just world continue to guide us all.”

https://theglobalfilipinomagazine.com/dalai-lama-honors-pope-francis-calls-on-world-to-live-with-compassion/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         HUMBLE ATHEIST.

cared enough?....

 

Common Dreams

Pope Francis dies at 88 after final appeal for Gaza ceasefire

 

“Will the millions who will mourn his death these coming days respect this wish of his? Will they care for Gazans and Palestinians the way he did?”

The Vatican announced on Monday that Pope Francis had died at the age of 88, hours after he appeared at an Easter mass and appealed for an end to Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip.

The pope’s Easter  address, read aloud by Archbishop Diego Ravelli, decried the “terrible conflict” in Gaza that “continues to cause death and destruction and to create a dramatic and deplorable humanitarian situation.”

“I appeal to the warring parties: call a cease-fire, release the hostages, and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!” said the message from the pope, an outspoken opponent of military conflict and  war profiteers,  climate destruction, and  runaway economic inequality.

“In the face of the cruelty of conflicts that involve defenceless civilians and attack schools, hospitals, and humanitarian workers, we cannot allow ourselves to forget that it is not targets that are struck, but persons, each possessed of a soul and human dignity,” the address continued.

News of the pontiff’s death came after a bout with double pneumonia left him hospitalised for more than a month. The Vatican did not specify a cause of death.

The Nation’s John Nichols  wrote on Sunday that Pope Francis’ calls for peace have made him “arguably the most consistent high-profile defender of the humanity of the Palestinian people during a period when the Israeli assault on Gaza has been pursued with relentless violence”.

Nichols added:

“With a boldness and specificity that has often sparked controversy, this pope has challenged economic injustice, racism, environmental neglect, militarism and the abuses of new technologies that increase inequality. He has faced his share of criticism, not just from conservatives who disapprove of his views, but also from reformers who sincerely wish that he would do more to modernise the church. Yet, in a time of too much indifference and impunity, this pope has remained uniquely engaged with the embattled regions that political and media elites neglect or abandon.

“That’s been especially true when it comes to Gaza, where Pope Francis has long argued for ceasefires, arms blockades, aid convoys, and a diplomatic urgency that recognises that Palestinians and Israelis are ‘fraternal peoples [who] have the right to live in peace’.”

In a tribute, Palestinian theologian Munther Isaac wrote on Monday that “he conveyed true compassion to Palestinians, most notably to those in Gaza during this genocide”.

“The pope left our world today, and the occupation and the wall remained. Even worse, he left our world while a genocide continues to unfold,” Isaac wrote, pointing to the pontiff’s call for a  thorough international investigation of Israel’s assault on Gaza.

“Today I wonder: Will the millions who will mourn his death these coming days respect this wish of his?” he asked. “Will they care for Gazans and Palestinians the way he did?”

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/04/pope-francis-dies-at-88-after-final-appeal-for-gaza-ceasefire/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

natural law?....

 

I WILL FIRST POST THESE RAMBLINGS FROM JUDGE ANDREW POLITANO, THEN DISCUSS IN BRIEF....

 

The Worst Pope in History

by 

 

A little over a year ago, I spent a week living and studying at the Vatican as a guest lecturer at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, a university-like organization of scholars that explores ideas of interest to the Vatican. Last year, the Academy addressed the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas on the 750th anniversary of his death.

This is not an esoteric subject. Aquinas taught that all rational persons are capable of discerning right from wrong and good from evil by the exercise of free will and human reason, and they do not need the government to aid them in this endeavor.

This is generally known as Natural Law. My presentation was on the concept of natural rights, a derivation of Natural Law.

The Vatican, which is a fraction of the size of Central Park in New York City, has a fine guest house on the grounds, called The Domus, which was my home for four days. It was also the permanent residence of Pope Francis.

My 24 colleagues and I were dining in the small Domus dining room on our first day there, when the Pope came in and sat two tables away from us. It was surreal.

Here is the backstory.

How do we know what we know?

Aquinas set about to answer that intriguing question. How do we know that we exist, that 2 plus 2 equals 4, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? These are truisms; thus, they cannot change and all rational people can discern them. They are true intrinsically, whether we believe they are or not. 

Aquinas taught that all rational adults can discover the truth by the exercise of free will. That exercise requires rational thinking. At the time he taught this, it was radical, as other scholars taught that forces outside of us drew us to discover truths.

Let’s say you like chocolate ice cream. Aquinas taught that you can rationally choose chocolate whenever you have an ice cream choice to make. Others taught that you really didn’t choose chocolate; it chose you — meaning that you can’t control your tastebuds.

This is not hairsplitting; rather it is central to Western thinking. If we don’t have free will, if we are just animals drawn to satiate our tastes, then are we responsible for our behavior? Can we take credit when we hit a home run or compose a symphony, or is all this just animal instinct acting out?

Aquinas’ views are known today as Natural Law. And the derivative of Natural Law are natural rights. Aquinas taught that the same God who made us in his own image and likeness gave us the gift of free will. We can use that free will to discover truth, practice baseball, learn music or choose our favorite ice cream. We can also use that free will to harm others, like stealing a purse or robbing a bank.

Aquinas taught that when we see a purse being stolen or a bank being robbed, we instinctually know that we are witnessing evil. How do we know this? We are hardwired by our Creator to discern good from evil.

But we cannot know this unless we have the free will to reject it. As God is perfectly free, so are we — his creatures — perfectly free.

The theory of natural rights — extrapolated from Aquinas — teaches that our rights are permanent claims against the whole world that no one, not even government, can take away. Of course, the purse snatcher and the bank robber give up their rights when they violate the rights of the purse owner and the bank depositors.

Today, we allow the government to take our property, privacy and free speech from us all the time.

Aquinas knew that government is the negation of liberty. We in the 21st century realize that we have a government that is utterly indifferent to our rights. The folks who run the federal government — no matter which political party is in power — believe they can kill any foe, steal any property, extinguish any right, declare any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event and insinuate themselves into any relationship so long as they can get away with it politically — all in defiance of Natural Law.

In America today, we see the destruction of Natural Law principles and the rejection of natural rights.

Now, back to the Pope.

Catholics believe that he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. But Francis may have been the worst pope in history. He watered down Church teachings on marriage, sexuality and confession. He declined to judge right from wrong. He forbade the Mass that every canonized saint in Heaven attended and participated in since 1564. He has even claimed that all religions are equal and welcomed in the eyes of God — contrary to 2,000 years of express Church teaching. This is heresy.

He attacked long-standing theology, universal liturgy and Thomistic Natural Law; when his principal job was to preserve them. He even questioned the concept of sin.

Nevertheless, it was surreal when he was brought into the guesthouse dining room, using a walker and an assistant at each arm. It was bizarre when he sat with his back to us. I wanted to go up to him and greet him, but the Swiss Guards had warned us not to approach him or call his name.

Two days later, I turned a corner in the guest house lobby, and there he was, 10 feet away — just the two of us. I gently bowed and whispered, “Your Holiness.” He looked at me and moved on.

Now, mercifully, Francis is gone. I pray for his soul and I pray for his successor. Please Lord, may the next Pope be a Catholic Pope.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/the-worst-pope-in-history/

 

 

GUSNOTE: EXCLUSIVELY, NATURAL LAW WOULD HAVE US STILL HANGING LIKE FRUITCAKES IN THE TREES OF THE JUNGLE... OR BE EXTINCT, FOR LACK OF FUR. HUMAN ONLY SURVIVED BECAUSE THEY DEFIED NATURAL LAWS — WITH DECEIT. 

SINCE WE FELL FROM THE TREE AND MODIFIED OUR LEG-HANDS INTO WALKING FEET, DECEIT HAS BEEN OUR BREAD AND BUTTER. WE EVOLVED THIS VERY NATURAL TRAIT (NOT LAW) THAT EXISTS PROFUSELY, BUT IN NECESSARY DOSAGE, IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, INTO A COMPLEX ART FORM (A STYLISTIC ABILITY). ONE WAY REINFORCING THE OTHER, WE DEVELOPED A BRAIN PROCESSING AND MEMORY — GREATER THAN IS NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL — IN WHICH WE COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH MORE DECEIT, BECAUSE BASICALLY WE DON'T KNOW.  

THROUGH THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES, WE HAVE DEVELOPED BELIEFS TO SOOTHE OUR ANGST AT NOT KNOWING MUCH — AND INVENTED SYSTEMS OF TRANSPORTATION, CULTIVATION, HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND DISTRACTIONS, IN ORDER TO IMPROVE OUR COMFORTS.

ALL GOOD, UNTIL WE STARTED TO BURN THE ANCESTORS — THE FOSSIL FUELS... PLANETARY REALITY IS COMING TO BITE US.... THIS WE KNOW...

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

 

 

 

 

a good pope....

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro highlighted the pontiff’s support against U.S. sanctions, framing his legacy as a cornerstone for social justice and Latin American sovereignty. Venezuelan Leader Praises Pope Francis as Pillar in Fight Against Imperialism Maduro emphasizes spiritual and political alliances against sanctions, positioning the pope as a beacon for progressive movements.

Related:

Venezuela Declares Three Days of National Mourning for Pope Francis: President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro Highlights His Legacy of Peace and Justice

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro paid tribute to Pope Francis during his program Con Maduro Live De Repente, underscoring the pontiff’s role as a key figure in defending Venezuela against what he called the “U.S.-led imperialist blockade.” The leader emphasized that the pope’s legacy transcends religion, framing him as a strategic ally in the fight against neocolonial policies.

Maduro hailed Pope Francis as “the people’s pope,” whose voice has denounced global inequalities and unilateral sanctions. He stressed that the religious leader openly questioned the economic blockade against Venezuela, a central theme in the Chavista government’s narrative against foreign interference.

Maduro highlighted how Francis revitalized the Catholic Church by aligning it with social movements and the “preferential option for the poor,” a principle he linked to the tenets of 21st-century socialism. This interpretation aims to reinforce the narrative of a Church committed to grassroots causes.

Historical Parallels: From the Roman Empire to Washington’s Power

In his speech, Maduro drew parallels between pressures from the “U.S. empire” and the oppression of ancient Rome, emphasizing a continuity in peoples’ resistance against hegemonic structures. This analogy strengthens the anti-imperialist discourse as a cornerstone of Venezuelan diplomacy.

The tribute included a musical piece composed for the occasion, blending traditional rhythms with lyrics celebrating cultural resistance. Analysts suggest this gesture seeks to solidify the Bolivarian narrative of integrating art and revolutionary politics.

Maduro warned that sanctions not only target Venezuela but are part of a broader regional strategy. He cited Pope Francis as a critic of these policies, recalling the pontiff’s calls for dialogue and human rights protections during Venezuela’s crisis.

 

The text reads:#ConMaduroLiveDeRepente || President @nicolasmaduro reflects on the importance of faith in our lives: ”We recognize Pope Francis as a marker of this new era. Faith in God is one of the most important things that gives human beings authenticity, drive, and the true light we need.”

Nicolás Maduro Guerra, Vice President of Religious Affairs for the ruling party, emphasized how the pope’s message on the dignity of the poor aligns with Bolivarian socialist principles. This alignment aims to legitimize the Chavista political project through an ethical-religious lens.

The tribute reflects a communication strategy that links global figures to anti-imperialist resistance, leveraging Pope Francis’ legacy to bolster narratives of sovereignty and social justice. However, critics note the official discourse omits the pope’s warnings against authoritarianism, selectively focusing on his critiques of capitalism.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/maduro-honors-pope-francis-legacy-as-symbol-of-anti-imperialist-resistance-and-defender-of-oppressed-peoples/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

 

 

welcome uncertainty...

 

Frank Brennan

The Legacy of a Jesuit Pope

 

The Argentinian Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a serious contender for the papacy at the conclave which elected Joseph Ratzinger in 2005. The cardinals who voted for Ratzinger saw him as a faithful preserver of all that Pope John Paul II (Karol Józef Wojtyła) had achieved in his long papacy from 1978 until his death in 2005. Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had provided much of the intellectual ballast for John Paul’s theological positions. The election of Ratzinger was a vote for continuity as the Catholic Church continued to wrestle with the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council which had concluded in 1965. Wojtyła had been a key bishop at that council, and Ratzinger was one of the Council’s bright, up and coming theological advisers.

By 2013, the papacy had all become too much for Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). A great intellectual, he was not given to the burdens of administration and political intrigue within the Vatican Curia besieged by scandals of child sexual abuse and financial maladministration. Ratzinger resigned and a conclave convened. Bergoglio aged 76 thought there was no chance of his being elected this time around. He came to Rome with nothing to lose and nothing to gain. He spoke freely in the pre-conclave meetings about the challenges confronting the church. Unlike Wojtyła and Ratzinger, he did not think the major challenges were doctrinal. He was fearless while at the same time preaching a message of mercy, love and inclusion. Unlike his predecessors, he was not from Europe. He had been instrumental in giving the Church in South America new vision and zeal through the meetings of bishops at Aparecida.

He arrived in Rome for the 2013 conclave, having booked his return flight to Buenos Aires, expecting to return home promptly after the conclave. After his surprising election, he phoned his newsagent to cancel his daily newspaper delivery. He never returned to his beloved Argentina.

Unlike Wojtyła and Ratzinger, Bergoglio had not attended the Second Vatican Council. By the age of 36, he was made Provincial of the Jesuits in Argentina. Towards the end of his six year term, he had to deal with corrupt army generals during the Dirty War, trying to protect his men who were working amongst the poor, setting limits on what priests committed to the poor could undertake during a time of such political and social upheaval. The Argentinian Jesuits became very divided and it did not bode well for Bergoglio. As he later admitted in a broad ranging interview just five months after becoming pope:

‘My style of government as a Jesuit at the beginning had many faults. That was a difficult time for the Society: an entire generation of Jesuits had disappeared. Because of this I found myself provincial when I was still very young. I was only 36 years old. That was crazy. I had to deal with difficult situations, and I made my decisions abruptly and by myself. …My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. I lived a time of great interior crisis when I was in Cordova. To be sure, I have never been like Blessed Imelda [a goody-goody], but I have never been a right-winger. It was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems. I do not want token consultations, but real consultations.’

This was the key to his strength as a modern pope. It was also the key to the disaffection towards him both by many conservative members of the Vatican Curia and by those liberal Catholics who expected him to do more about issues such as women’s ordination and reform of the Vatican Curia. He was adamant that it would be up to the Pope to make final decisions. But those decisions should not be made until there has been proper discernment, rather than lobbying. Decisions should be made only after there has been time for ‘real consultations’. Thus he caused more than a little exasperation when convening synods, including synods on the family and on synodality which ran for years, with most of the difficult decisions being put off to another day. And that day was not to come during his papacy, even though it lasted 12 years.

Conservative Catholics became frustrated when he declared: ‘I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. … Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs.’ His predecessors would never had said such things.

By 2022, senior clerics in Rome were circulating to cardinals a document under the pseudonym ‘Demos’, describing Francis’s pontificate as ‘a disaster’ and ‘a catastrophe’, and outlining the priorities for the next pope: ‘restore normality, restore doctrinal clarity in faith and morals, restore a proper respect for the law and ensure that the first criterion for the nomination of bishops is acceptance of the apostolic tradition’.

Shortly before his own death, Australian Cardinal George Pell allowed The Spectator to publish an article condemning the synod on synodality as a ‘toxic nightmare’.

More liberal Catholics were delighted with Francis’s pastoral approach and openness to dialogue. He was happy to give press conferences on the plane after his many overseas visits. He did not require questions to be submitted in writing. When returning from Brazil, he was asked about the Church’s position on homosexuality, and he simply answered with a question of his own: ‘If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?’ Another liberating aspect of his papacy was his willingness to meet with the Jesuits whenever he visited a country. He would have a lengthy conversation with his brother Jesuits, answering any of their questions, then agreeing to having the transcript published. While not pretending to have all the answers, he was not afraid to engage.

He published four encyclicals during his papacy, one being largely the work of Benedict before his resignation. John Paul II had published fourteen. The only encyclical of Francis which is likely to have abiding effect is his Laudato Si’ in which he brought together the call to care for the poor, care for the planet, and care for our own interior life. Australian economist Ross Garnaut says: ‘The most rigorous, comprehensive and influential treatment of the ethics of climate change is Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’. In this work he applies Catholic, Christian and general ethical teachings and intellectual traditions to climate change.’ Garnaut went on to observe: ‘Of more importance in the public discussion has been the clearer understanding of the importance of the non-economic values affected by climate change ….Here the leading contribution has been by Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’.’

Not being a European and being from the south with a commitment to those on the margins, Francis was determined to reshape the leadership of the Church with his choice of cardinals. Think only of the situation in our part of the world. While Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Tonga have cardinals of voting age at conclave (80 years), Australia has not had one until four months ago when Francis chose Bishop Mykola Bychok, bishop for the Ukrainian Catholics in Australia, New Zealand, and Oceania. Sydney and Melbourne don’t rate a mention. Though Francis visited Timor Leste and Papua New Guinea, he never made it to Australia.

Francis was the pope of personal encounter and the master of the symbolic gesture. His first papal visit outside Rome was to the island of Lampedusa in the Mediterranean where so many boat people from Africa find landfall seeking asylum in Europe. On Holy Thursday, instead of washing the feet of twelve devoted attendees at St Peter’s Basilica, he would wash the feet of twelve prisoners including some who were Muslim. His opening remarks to the US Congress played on his audience’s innate nationalism and immediately challenged them to a broader vision: ‘I am most grateful for your invitation to address this Joint Session of Congress in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. I would like to think that the reason for this is that I too am a son of this great continent, from which we have all received so much and toward which we share a common responsibility.’ His last public political utterance was his letter to the US Catholic bishops objecting to President Trump’s planned deportations: ‘The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.’

He was to be an interim pope, but having served for 12 years, he became a bridge to a new age. As the church crosses that bridge, we come to a crossroads poignantly highlighted in the movie Conclave where Ralph Fiennes plays the dean of the College of Cardinals. He addresses the cardinals: ‘There is one sin which I have come to fear above all others: certainty. Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance. Even Christ was not certain at the end. “Dio mio, Dio mio, perché mi hai abbandonato?” he cried out in his agony at the ninth hour on the Cross. Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery and, therefore, no need for faith. Let us pray that God will grant us a pope who doubts.’

Francis was a pope prepared to blur the edges of doctrine, or at least its application, opening the doors of the Church to all those seeking love, mercy and forgiveness. He never doubted God’s capacity to love and forgive all who sought that love and forgiveness. He maintained the certainty, not of doctrine but of the simple piety of believers.

In one of his homilies, Francis said, ‘A Church of the pure and perfect is a room with no place for anyone. On the other hand, a Church with open doors, that gathers and celebrates around Christ, is a large room where everyone – everyone, the righteous and sinners – can enter.’ At the coming conclave our cardinals from places near and far such as Mongolia and Timor Leste will determine whether it is time to open wider those doors, even allowing the difficult decisions such as women’s ordination to be resolved.

I am one Jesuit who is grateful that a fellow Jesuit has opened such a path of uncertainty for believers in our messy and complex world. As he wished, Francis lived until Easter Day when he said: ‘In the wonder of the Easter faith, carrying in our hearts every expectation of peace and liberation, we can say: with You, O Lord, everything is new. With you, everything begins again.’ And it has. May Francis rest in peace.

Fr Frank Brennan SJ is superior of the Hurtado Jesuit community in Brisbane. An edited version of this piece appeared in The Australian on 21 April 2025.

 

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/04/the-legacy-of-a-jesuit-pope/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.