Our parish priest, a good man in every respect, posited in his sermon for the first Sunday after Easter that the first week of the Easter Octave had been “a good week to be a Catholic”. One aspect of his sermon reviewed the legacy of our recently departed Pope Francis; the other was the recent upsurge in young people coming into the Catholic Church. He did not directly link these two facts.
I was fascinated to hear what he had to say about Pope Francis. His words were kind, observing fastidiously the dictum of not speaking ill of the dead. Perhaps that is protocol, perhaps he meant it, or was simply at pains not to upset parishioners devoted to the Pope.
Some will have agreed with many utterances of Pope Francis. Others will simply be devoted, unquestioningly, to the office of the Pope either incredulous that he could say anything untoward or accepting that whatever he says, however off the wall, is the way to go. Certainly, that appeared to be the view of another priest — one whom I also hold in high regard — who made a social call this week. He thought that, perhaps, some of the comments of Pope Francis, which puzzled traditionalists like me, were the right comments at the right time.
I can only conclude that I may be wrong in finding it hard to see the positive side of Pope Francis’s legacy. As a Roman Catholic, I believe many things that other Christians do not believe. I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church, the ark of salvation outside of which salvation cannot be achieved. That, incidentally, does not condemn all non-Catholics or even all non-Christians to Hell; but it would take a theologian to explain it properly.
My faith also encompasses a belief that God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, has a hand in the appointment of popes, albeit that human hands are required to cast the votes at a conclave. Therefore, while I have joked about the Holy See being vacant (‘sede vacante’) on occasions, I have never really believed that. If I did, I would have left the Catholic Church. My conclusion, therefore, is that Pope Francis was appointed Pope, perhaps even inflicted on us, for a reason. It is just that I am damned if I can figure out what that reason was.
His liberal leanings were already known to many — but not to me — when he was appointed. My first doubts about Francis came when he was misquoted in conversation with journalists on a flight about the place of gay priests in the Church. He was widely quoted as saying, simply: “Who am I to judge?” when many, including non-Catholics, thought he was the perfect person to judge.
What he in fact said was: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” It was not so much what he said as what he did not say; there was no proviso along the lines that celibacy was still a requirement, as it is (in theory) for gay priests in the Church of England.
The gay issue arose again when he approved the blessing of same-sex relationships by priests. He not only approved this but doubled down on it when questioned. This decision, again without provisos about celibacy or living together ‘like brothers’ (or sisters), seems incomprehensible in the face of Catholic teaching about marriage. Why, for example, not bless heterosexual cohabitation, which, at least, is between a man and a woman and could be open to the transmission of life?
Why gay unions had to be so privileged is a mystery known only — and forever — to Francis. He also left individual parish priests, who were allowed to refuse such blessings, in a potentially awkward situation whereby they could be accused of discrimination, harassed by parishioners with an interest in the issue, and hounded out of their parishes.
On matters of doctrine, Francis always seemed the master of the incomplete, ambiguous statement. But on other matters, he displayed less ambiguity. His comments lacked nuance and often flew in the face of fact or displayed rank hypocrisy, which he and his supporters either ignored or failed to see.
He sided with the poor, hardly a novel frame of mind for a Christian and former Jesuit. Indeed, there was evidence of considerable practical and pastoral work among the poor of Buenos Aires, for which he must be admired.
But he also sided, unquestioningly, with refugees and migrants, chastising countries that tried to restrict the flow of migrants — legal and illegal — across their borders. Meanwhile, there is no such open-door policy for migrants into the Vatican City, which remains difficult even for the faithful to enter.
On climate issues he went ‘full Greta’. He wholeheartedly embraced climate alarmism, propagating demonstrable nonsense about global warming and human-induced earthquakes in his apostolic exhortation Laudate Deum, and before that in his encyclical letter Laudato Si’, claiming, without credible evidence, “The world is collapsing and may be at breaking point.” This was parroted by many down the ecclesial line, including our diocesan bishop.
Francis often took advice from the wrong people. I quote from one of my columns in TCW Defending Freedom:
I began to have my doubts about Francis within weeks of his election when I attended meetings of the Global Advisory Panel on the Future of Nursing in Switzerland and Puerto Rico which were facilitated by a very able American lady. She was an atheist, a feminist and pro-abortion. She knew I was Catholic and said her next stop was Rome. “Holiday?” I asked. It transpired that she was going to meet the Pope as part of an advisory group he was setting up on global health. Apparently, he phoned her himself. A man with a state and a world church to run bypasses his secretariat and makes his own phone calls.
Given his choice of advisors, it is unsurprising he supported vaccine passports and COVID-19 testing, even backing punitive measures against non-conformists. He also promoted the use of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, despite their production using foetal cell lines, something not approved by the Catholic Church.
Francis’s ‘man of the people’ persona, including refusing to inhabit the papal apartments and wandering the streets of Rome unaccompanied, made security difficult. A friend and former Vatican insider described his behaviour as “a nightmare” for his security detail.
A recent commentator on Francis’s death compared him to Mahatma Gandhi, quoting one of his aides: “You have no idea how much money it costs to keep the Mahatma in poverty.” A similar charge could be levied at Francis. His measures will not have saved a single Vatican bean. Wherever he lived had to be cleaned; he still had to be fed, and his security detail still had to be paid.
Those of us with traditional views can thank God that two basic tenets of tradition — priestly celibacy and the exclusion of women from ordination — have not changed. Yet Francis alienated many. As a father of eight, I disliked his advice that couples need not breed “like rabbits”. He also questioned whether priests fond of the traditional Latin Mass simply “liked to dress up“.
Returning to the upsurge in young people returning to the Catholic Church, there may be a ‘Pope Francis effect’, but I doubt it. Where I see predominantly young congregations is where traditional services are held.
At a traditional Latin Mass in London a few years ago, I was one of the oldest there by at least 30 years. In our parish, the Catholic Student Union is thriving, with several converts and returnees. Several of these attend the weekly traditional Latin Mass and are daily communicants.
These young Catholics are seeking meaning and clarity — qualities the traditional Roman Catholic Church offered, but which Pope Francis seemed less able to provide. Their presence may be despite, not because of, Pope Francis.
Dr Roger Watson is Professor of Nursing at Saint Francis University, Hong Kong SAR, China. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He writes in a personal capacity.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.