The death of Pope Francis on Monday morning was something of a surprise given that we had seen him on television the previous day at the end of the Mass in Saint Peter’s Square. On the other hand anybody who had looked at any of the pictures of him in recent weeks had, I am sure, concluded that his life expectancy was fairly short. Ever since he was first ill people’s minds have been turning towards the possibility of a Papal vacancy and the ensuing Conclave.
I can, I think, understand what he sought to do as parish priest of the World in terms of reaching out to proclaim God’s mercy - but all Popes for almost two centuries have tried to do that. Many people responded to that message from the Argentine Pope, not least the liberal media. Many of the issues he addressed were indeed good and appropriate, but too often it maybe looked like just another government or international body commenting, and not the Church of God.
I suspect some of the problems in his rule stemmed from the fact that he was an outsider to Rome and the mechanisms of the Vatican. His tendency to push ahead, to not play the game, seems to have created division and hostility that inhibited reform and alienated people, who could not figure out what they were being expected to do. The Pope who extolled mercy could, on his own admission, be brusque and authoritarian.
I am one of many who felt alienated by the moves towards doctrinal equivocation and especially against traditional liturgical practice, above all with Traditiones Custodes. The day that was issued I very consciously went to the traditional Latin Mass in my parish church, and since then have been fortunate enough to attend almost exclusively that form either in person or online. Traditiones Custodes made me a ‘Trad’.
Last year a friend, a cradle Catholic, observed to me that he felt far less excitement in his practice as a Catholic than he had felt in the time of Pope Benedict. I agreed with him. Yes, we were definitely Catholic but the spark was dimmed, the exhilaration lacking.
He and I, and maybe many others, will have to see what we feel in coming months and years.
More than ever in such circumstances, the death of the Pope has produced an enormous outpouring of comment and interpretation alongside ordinary obituaries and news reports. Looking at only some of this I am struck by the fact that they coverage is far from made the respectful noting of the death of a Pope, but they fault lines for future discussion of his place in history are already very clearly being marked out. I will not attempt to provide my own answer now, but history and historians will ultimately have a verdict, or verdicts, on the life of Jorge Bergoglio and on his tenure of the Holy See. The fact that such a discussion is taking place within days, even hours of his death, is an indicator of how controversial he has been.
This process will not end until after a new Pope is elected, because the discussion of Francis’ pontificate is integral to the discussions amongst the Cardinal electors, the other Cardinals, the Curia, the wider ecclesial body and the whole body of the faithful. That can be little doubt that the impending Conclave will be one of the most significant in a very long time, and will be meticulously, obsessively, analysed and dissected in advance, with all the likely or unlikely candidates identified and considered, whilst it is being held and then in the new Pontificate.
We must all pray for the future direction of the Church, for the Cardinals, and for whoever will be the new Pope.
