by Miceál O’Hurley
VATICAN CITY — Standing outside Castel San Angelo, the medieval stronghold meant to protect popes during times of turbulence I had the opportunity to speak to the Catholic faithful from different parts of the globe, of varying ages and with disparate opinions. Repeatedly, the words “safety”, “security” and “certainty” were invoked when answering what they wanted from the next pope and his pontificate. These answers spoke to the sense of unfinished business left behind from Pope Francis whom we laid to rest today.
Francis believed in dialogue and collegiality. At times, it was this very commitment to collegiality that put him at odds with the expectations of the faithful who over the centuries adopted the abandon of cooperation as once existed between the leaders of the early Church as vested in the historic five Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and embraced the increasingly unitary authority claimed by popes since the Great Schism of 1054 which divided the Church between East and West. That division, was not simply geographic, but structural as the Popes of Rome claimed to be vested with a superior authority in their administration of what was meant by Jesus to be a unified Church on Earth but senior in their ability to mediate over their fellow Patriarchs between Heaven and Earth.
For almost the entire last millennium Popes had hitherto exercised their Petrine ministry as the singular source of unity over all Christendom, a position reinforced by unilateral and authoritarian proclamations and decisions, Francis’ willingness to discuss difficult issues in dialogue left both sides of most debates feeling uncertain with a lack of resolution. For Francis, the dialogue had value and yet his unwillingness to proclaim any definitive positions to be adopted by the Church left stakeholder-participants and observers feeling let-down. After all, the Catholic faithful look to the Church to be the arbiter of definitive truths so that they might lead their lives in conformity with its precepts. As Pope, Francis stood in the shoes of St. Peter and is proclaimed verily to be Peter in authority (Tu es Petrus), entrusted with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
His lack of definitive guidance on issues such as the role of women in the Church left the faithful wondering. It is true, Pope Francis appointed Sr. Simona Brambilla, an Italian-born religious sister from the Consolata Missionaries, as Prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life – the first woman to hold such a senior position in the Holy See. And yet, the role of females in the Church, from serving on the altar to ordination to the diaconate, were left largely unresolved with women remaining as uncertain as their place in the Church as ever.
The same was true for the LGTBQ community. Francis approved “Fiducia Supplicans” (“Supplicating Trust”) which provided for the blessing of LGTBQ couples and couples in second relationships following divorce. Still, if fell far short of the their desire to have their unions recognised as marriage – a position traditionalist and conservative Catholics vehemently opposed. While a Catholic priest can now bless a non-traditional couple as long as it is not a “formal liturgical blessing” and does not give the impression that the Catholic Church is blessing the union as if it were a marriage, the compromise without resolution left both proponents and opponents of change feeling alienated, uncertain, unsafe and insecure. Instead of being an instrument of unity, Pope Francis’ Pontificate failed to resolve issues with the clarity people desire. It was the same for many other issues.
Francis desperately tried to move on to items near and dear to his agenda only to find the unresolved matters consuming the Church’s energy, time and even his own patience. One of those topics was the possibility of genuine reconciliation with the Orthodox Church. While Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew build an incredibly close bond, the relationship and dialogue did little to move the nearly one-thousand year old rift that took place in the Great Schism of 1054. And yet for Francis, it was the intimacy of the relationship and the courage to discuss the matter that had value. The two Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople fully understood the challenge of reconciliation but their very positions and faith called them to strive to make Christ’s prayer for unity in the Gospel of John real. Both Francis and Bartholomew looked forward to this very year. It was during the Ecumenical Patriarch’s visit to Rome in June 2024 that Pope Francis expressed his desire to travel to Nicaea together with the Ecumenical Patriarch for the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. Francis then extended and invitation for Bartholomew to visit Rome in 2025. Little did Francis know then it would be fulfilled only when the Ecumenical Patriarch stood at the foot of the Pope’s wooden coffin that the invitation would be fulfilled during the 2025 Jubilee Year of Hope.
If Christian unity did not get enough attention in Francis’ agenda, neither did other cardinal issues such as safeguarding the environment. In his groundbreaking Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ Francis paid homage to interconnectedness of his worldview, celebrating what unity he shared with his brother leading the Orthodox Christian Church writing, “Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”. And still, the Paris Climate Accord was rendered ineffective as temperatures and the ravage of climate change continued to destroy our planet’s habitability, especially for the poorer nations so vulnerable to absorbing the impact of the devastating change most had little change in introducing, “The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish…. The idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology … 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 at every limit.” And despite the sobering reality he relayed, Francis again returned to his posture of hope, “Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start.”
Then there was the ever interconnected issues of peace, justice and dignity. As the world turned ever more authoritarian, opportunistic and focused on economic progress over human development Francis spoke out in increasingly salient terms on the need to forge peace and reduce poverty. His dedication to these issues could be summed-up in a single act he repeated like a nightly ritual – sharing a video or telephone call with the single remaining Catholic parish in Gaza, the Holy Family Church. In life, Francis did not seek to publicise or celebrate this act of fidelity with his sons and daughters in Gaza but in death all realised how central it was to the man, the priest and the pope. Those nightly calls served to uplift those trapped in the horrors of war inflicted on Palestine’s Gaza strip and in a way uplift the Pope himself. Francis felt his priesthood most acutely when he shared in the life of the poor, the weak and the downtrodden. By identifying with those few remaining Christian faithful of the parish of the Holy Family in Gaza Francis sought to meet their spiritual needs while elevating the role the Vicar of Christ, as the Pope is known, by engaging in a ministry of service. Following his death, George Anton, the Holy Family parish emergency coordinator said, “We felt like ‘Oh my God, we’re like orphans now“. Francis knew how powerful could be a simply ministry of presence.
And then there was Ukraine. While Pope Francis roundly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with all of its attendant barbarism and war crimes, he too often was seen by Ukrainians as failing to defend their position. After praising a gathering of Russian youth and extolling their culture of literature, arts and Christian heritage he was criticised for failing to condemn the Russia culture of colonialism, aggression, war and inhumanity. When Francis told Swiss broadcaster RSI, Ukraine should have “the courage of the white flag” and submit to Russia as a way of bringing a supposed end to the bloodshed he provoked the ire of Catholic conferences of Bishops as well as Ukrainians. For many, Francis’ tendency to seek a via media often created blurred lines creating moral ambiguity between good and evil. Francis, however, remained true to his Jesuit formation of dialogue, reflection, inquisitiveness and spirituality even if his personal constitution was at structural odds with his duty of Pope to speak with clarity and finality where evil abound.
In the end, Pope Francis may well be remembered for being an exceptional man (he was) but one whose Pontificate failed to resolve major issues or put old disputes to bed. The result is the faithful who looked to the man who wore the Shoes of the Fisherman for guidance were left unanswered, confused and at times alienated. I’ve had the honour to personally know 3 Popes, two quite well. I retain personal and corporate memories of each, and each memory I recall speaks to the man and the Pontiff. For me, I’ll cherish the knowledge that every night Francis took time to Zoom with the Holy Family parish in Gaza — Palestinian Christians living under siege. What could be more compassionate and pastoral?
As for the future, the question is will the Conclave elect someone to carry on Francis’ un-fulfilled agenda, or a conservative that will make Catholics challenged by change feel more comfortable? Or, will a candidate from the papabile who embraces a via media be elected? The answer may lie in two things — the age of the pope elected which would indicate the College of Cardinals’ desire to give a mandate to whomever they elect, and geography — which will shape a papacy based on where that pope was raised and ministered. The election has consequences for us all. In an age of growing political authoritarianism, fascism and dictatorships the new pope will have a voice to speak to morality and Christian values, that is if he chooses to use it. For most people I spoke to in Rome, they seek a pope with moral clarity who will exercise their Petrine ministry for world good. The difficulty is, Catholics are deeply divided on their views of what the Church is and should be, making the new pope’s ability to deliver all the more difficult.
The world must wait idly by during the novemdiales – the period of mourning before Conclave begins to elect a new Pope. The leaders I met at St. Peter’s following the funeral mass, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Nobel Laureate and Bangladeshi President Muhammad Yunus and the many other heads of state, high ranking diplomats and other religious leaders, all once collaborators with the Pope, have no role or influence in deciding who will become the next Pope. That decision remains with the Cardinal electors and the Holy Spirit. World leaders must remain content to know that whomever is elected, be he a conservative, liberal or a candidate who choses a via media they need another voice of clarity on issues that are pressing and which confront all human beings, regardless of nationality, geography, politics or confession of faith.
