Remembering Pope Francis

I am in grief. I knew that Pope Francis was seriously sick and would not last forever. But I was hoping against hope that he would lead the church a bit longer. His appearance on the balcony of Saint Peter’s basilica in front of a vast crowd nourished this expectation.

The reason why I have already started to miss Pope Francis is that with him I felt at home in my church, the Catholic Church. I am one of those Christians who are inspired by the gospel of Jesus Christ but often see the church as an obstacle to the faith. I would not be a Christian without the church but at the same time I struggle to relate to it. With Pope Francis, this changed.

Under the previous two popes, John-Paul II (1978-2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-2013) I was like a stranger in my own church. The Second Vatican marked a time of hope and renewal. As the conciliar document Gaudium et Spes articulated it, the church was in the world and not next to it or against it. It embraced ‘the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of our age.’

The Second Vatican Council was followed by a time of experimentation which inevitably brought confusion. The reaction among many church leaders was to slow down the movement. They adopted a restrictive interpretation of Vatican II. This is where Francis made a difference. He did not have such apprehensions. One can safely say that with him the reception of Vatican II has begun.

The most remarkable aspect of his pontificate was its style. It was for good reasons that he chose the name Francis in reference to Francis of Assisi. His first decision was to establish his headquarters at the Vatican in a modest guesthouse called House Santa Marta. Typically, he asked to be buried in a simple coffin. When making speeches or talking to people, he used ordinary language. He did not need a communication officer, he just spoke normally, if I may say.

Francis initiated a reform of the Curia – unfortunately interrupted by his death – and tackled a new number of scandals, in matters of financial management in particular. He did not immediately grasp the enormity of the problem of sexual abuse of children by priests but once he took the measure of it he initiated a response. He internationalised the Curia and the college of cardinals, giving preference to people from the South including Africa. He appointed two women to high positions in the Curia. This is work in progress of course but with Francis the Catholic Church has begun to move in the right direction.

Francis will be remembered as a prophetic leader. One of his first encyclicals, Laudato Si, was devoted to the environment: unless we care for the earth, we shall all suffer, the poor of course but also the rich. Protecting the earth is a sacred duty. Many people external to the church respected him for that. Francis tapped into the spiritual resources of the church to promote a healthy and forward-looking relationship to the environment.

Another high point of his pontificate was his concern for migrants. At a time, when guided by far-right ideologies, numerous leaders and political parties speak of building walls and expelling migrants even if they are at risk of death, he advocated a truly evangelical response. Remember his visit to the islands of Lampedusa in July 2013. Conservatives all over the world hated him for that.

Francis’ enemies inside the church accuse him of doctrinal laxity. This is an unfair criticism. As a Jesuit – in fact the first Jesuit pope in history – he knew and appreciated the Catholic doctrine. But instead of insisting on doctrinal integrity in a top-down manner independently from the context, he adopted what his predecessors many centuries ago named the casuistic approach, that is, judging the situation case by case without ignoring the rules of the church but adapting them in a human and pastoral manner.

A case in point is the issue of Lesbian Gay Transsexual Bisexual Queer Intersex and other sexual orientations’ (LGTBQI+) people. He came to realise that people of different sexual orientation didn’t choose to be what they are. Far from being “sinful”, they are people in need of care and compassion. ‘Who am I to judge?,’ he was heard as saying. Francis’ recent decision to authorise the blessing of unions of same-sex people should be seen in this light. He did not authorise same-sex marriages, which would have compromised, he thought, the essence of the sacrament of marriage.

I do not idealise Pope Francis. He had weaknesses. For example, he misjudged, in my opinion, the Ukrainian situation. By advocating peace at an early stage of the conflict, he played into the hands of Russia whose aim was not to make peace but to conquer a new territory in defiance of international laws. He should have affirmed the principle of sovereignty. This is the real condition for peace. During a recent trip in Belgium, he shocked many people, including Catholics, by requesting the canonisation of King Baudouin, who had temporarily relinquished power to avoid having to sign a law authorising abortion. This interference in the constitutional matters of a democratic state was ill-advised.

Pope Francis will be sorely missed. At a time when, inspired by far-right ideologies, various world leaders, political parties and think tanks openly advocate xenophobia, climatoscepticism and tax laws in favour of the ultra-rich, he was a welcome antidote. We pray that his successor will preserve and maintain his legacy.

Professor Philippe Denis – a professor at UKZN – is a member of the Dominican Order, a religious congregation in the Catholic Church.

*The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

This piece was originally published in The Witness on 25 April 2025.