Pope Francis: An Assessment of His Pontificate

When Pope Francis passed away, some people asked me for an evaluation of his pontificate. A few days have passed since. Our Catholic friends finished their mourning period, and the conclave starts tomorrow, so now I think it’s the right time to share my thoughts.

When making my assessment, I’ll try to go from the negative towards the positive. Please bear in mind that I am not an expert in papal matters; I did not follow Bergoglio’s pontificate at all save from a few news pieces that came to me here and there from the media, to which I do not pay much attention either. The negative shall receive some more attention than the positive since only few people noticed these aspects (I think).

First, we have to state the obvious: on the most important matters we are at the same point, and that is not good. The 16th-century Reformation, of which Protestantism comes from, was a movement of restoration, correction and renewal of several quite obvious issues in the world of Latin Christianity. Save for a few abuses corrected in Trento, and the introduction of the vernacular and the simplification of liturgy in Vatican II and some other stuff, Roman Catholicism has not really changed in its esence and what separates us unfortunately still stands. While we appreciate Pope Francis’ gestures signaling openness, in an objective appraisal they were of little significance. Rome remains basically the same in its doctrine; the issues we object are still there, unchanged, and the claims that gave rise to the Reformation remain almost all fully justified.

In addition, Pope Francis’ doctrinal ambiguity is also highly questionable. Many papal statements lacked their required precision, with a vagueness that I consider intentional. This was undoubtedly by design; so these statements could, at the same time, please the so-called progressives and the press while simultaneously refraining from angering (too much) the conservatives. But this, again, was done without implying any hint of change to the Roman magisterium. This is a gesture of a consummate politician, and we have to give Francis due credit for that.

However, also in this area, we must object to the absolute gaffe that was the Fiducia supplicans document, issued by the Argentine Cardinal Victor Fernández, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. This document implied that the blessing of same-sex couples could be allowed. It caused a lot of unnecessary confusion and perplexity; because while appearing progressive (and confusing) in its tone, the document never really entailed any change at all in Catholic teachings on the matter. That was a statement of a subordinate, but Pope Francis did not repeal nor abrogate it, choosing to remain silent (again, like a consummate politician) instead. This is understandable, of course; but coming after a world-class theologian such a Ratzinger, blunders such as this painfully stand out.

In his role as a bishop-ruler, we can say that he generally favoured a more progressive sector within Roman Catholicism. This, however, needs to be qualified, because those most favored were not card-carrying all-out progressives, but more moderate elements among them. But after the Wojtyla (John Paul II) and Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) pontificates, noted for favoring extreme conservative groups within Catholicism, any “center-progressive” element might look as coming from the Radical Left as well, even when that is not the case. When it came to imposing his changes, he did not hesitate to be extremely drastic if needed.

Example of this was his handling of the case of the late bishop of Ciudad del Este (Paraguay), Msgr. Rogelio Livieres. Beyond any mistakes that could be pointed out in his episcopate, Livieres was a strange creature among the Paraguayan bishops. Paraguayan Catholicism, terminally infected of progressivism and teachings from the 1968 Medellí­n Synod since the long Ismael Rolón tenure as archbishop —perhaps with good cause, since it happened during the worst years of Alfredo Stroessner’s dictatorship— could not stand an openly conservative bishop, and waged war against Livieres right from the start.

When Francis took office, his fate was sealed. Livieres was “invited to step down” and when he refused, he was unceremoniously kicked out; and the diocese and the faithful were left to deal with the trauma. I cannot help but think that there were personal vendetta overtones in this case. Bergoglio was Archbishop of Buenos Aires when Livieres was among the top officials of the Opus Dei prelature also in Buenos Aires. It’s simply not possible that these two were not acquainted and known each other personally. The way Pope Francis acted in this matter, again, leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth of a personal vendetta. This is entirely my guess, I could be wrong, but this is how I see it.

On the other hand, all these shadows must be balanced with great positive aspects.

First, we should celebrate Francis’ frank and direct way of relating with people. This meant a breath of fresh air in the papacy and Catholicism in general. We also should note the real, sincere appreciation Pope Francis had for my country, Paraguay. This reached the point of doing something that I personally thought it was impossible: appointing a Paraguayan cardinal. The chosen person, Cardinal Martínez, is a good bishop who put order in many aspects of the Archdiocese and is undoubtedly a good choice.

Francis’ interest in the environment should also be celebrated. This was an issue mostly ignored by other popes. Francis’ interest might not be liked by many due to his allegedly “globalist” leanings (I leave that analysis to the conspiracy theorists), but making emphasis on caring for the environment as God’s creation is something Biblical and commendable. On a personal level, his humility and personal frugality set the example to many who still belive that ostentatiousness is mandatory to signal success in life.

Finally, his kindness and courtesy towards the Evangelical people should be commended and appreciated. For the first time, many of us “separated brethren” felt trated in a fraternal way at the papal level. However, this should be contrasted against the lack of meaningful change in so many aspects of the Roman Church that need to go back to the clear teaching of the Word of God.

In conclusion: Francis’ pontificate should be seen as quite positive; but a transitional one. I think Bergoglio himself treated his term in office as such; he knew he had not many years left in this world and, rather than engaging in deep changes, he concerned himself to slightly steer the course towards the right direction, but again, an ever slight correction.

I consider this a teaching gesture on his part; showing all Catholic parties the need for changes, and that these would imply a victory neither for “progressives” nor “conservatives,” but corrections that are necessary so that Rome could find the way that God has set for His Church. But I insist, this correction was ever so slight, only enough to show all people the need of change. The task of following-up and further defining such changes shall now fall to Francis’ successor or successors.

So, then, tomorrow the conclave shall begin.

As Evangelicals, I think we should pray for that election; because it is one of the precious few opportunities Roman Catholicism has of shifting towards the direction it is in desperate need of going. As an Evangelical, Reformed, Protestant Christian, I’m fully aware of the distances separating us from Roman Catholicism; but we should never lose hope. To my Catholic friends, I wish you all the best; that the Cardinals may choose a good Pope, who will guide and correct the course for such a large group of faithful, so dear to our affections, that we call Roman Catholicism.

SOLI DEO GLORIA