Memories and perceptions of Pope Francis are many and varied. To give a few examples, some will remember him for opening debate on the question of women’s leadership in the Church, while others will focus on his rejection of women’s ordination. Many will remember him being elected to deal with paedophilia, while others have alleged that he went soft on individual offenders. Some will remember him for being pro-Jewish and for declaring that delegitimising the Jewish State was a form of antisemitism. Others will remember him for encouraging liberation theology and consequently opening the Church to new forms of antisemitism.
For every opinion about Francis, or perception of him, there seems to be ample evidence to support a contrary viewpoint.
The challenge we have in interpreting Francis is that, for decades, Catholics were spoiled by John Paul II and Benedict XVI for clarity of doctrine. Under their leadership, everyone knew exactly where they stood. Everyone knew what authentic Catholic teaching was, and it was presented brilliantly and clearly by outstanding intellectuals. John Paul II and Benedict XVI led a Church in which, in the words of Cardinal Pell, even rebellious progressives knew clearly what they were dissenting from.
Francis did not have the clarity of the previous Popes, but he had a magnetic personality, and he even encouraged young Catholics to ‘make a mess’. The problem for interpreting Francis from the West is that most of us are accustomed to divisions on the left-right spectrum, or a liberal-conservative range of worldviews. Francis, however, was not located anywhere on either spectrum, but he came from a completely different perspective and worldview.
Francis was heavily influenced by Peronism, the political movement heralded by Juan Peron and which had been ironically influenced in its formation by elements of Catholic social teaching.
As a political ideology, Peronism regards praxis and personality as more important than principles. We see that in the cult of personality fostered by Juan and Eva Peron, and also in the way that Peron did not lead Argentina according to socialist or capitalist ideologies, but from an utterly different perspective.
There is a story that is probably apocryphal, but which captures Peronism brilliantly. Peron invited his nephew to see how he was leading Argentina. One day the socialists came and proposed that Argentina be turned into a leftist utopia. Peron told them, ‘You are absolutely right.’ The next day, the fascists came and told Peron that Argentina should be turned into a right-wing state. Peron also told them, ‘You are absolutely right.’ When the nephew protested that Peron had told two different groups that he agreed with their contradictory views, he turned to his nephew and said, ‘You are absolutely right.’
Francis epitomised this sort of Peronism. By prioritising personality and praxis, he could take positions that people might find mutually exclusive and confusing, but he could exercise leadership through his magnetic personality. That meant that people who craved intellectual clarity, or who were stuck on the liberal-conservative spectrum, could always find something to like about him, as well as something to dislike.
In this article, I am not going to say whether Francis was right or wrong. After all, who am I to judge? But if we are going to understand Francis and his legacy, it behoves us to appreciate that he did not fit the sort of leadership to which Catholics have been accustomed for centuries, a leadership style brought to a high point by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Instead, Francis came from a completely different worldview that is very hard for people in Western culture to understand.
This will be very important to appreciate because there is every chance that the shoes of the fisherman will be filled by a new Pope from Asia or Africa. A Pope from those regions will also have a new way of thinking and a new worldview that may be alien to people from the West. To give an example, most Catholics in the West would think about a progressive Pope as being in favour of both social justice and a liberal moral theology. But a Pope from Africa is likely to be socially progressive in terms of foreign aid and wealth redistribution, but harshly conservative towards marriage and family values. It is likely that a new Pope from outside Europe and North America will upend expectations even more than Francis, with a new way of thinking and a new worldview. Of course, one cannot predict who will be the new Pope, but it seems that the Church is in for a wild ride.
Francis will be remembered differently by many people. Since his death, conservatives have shared with me one version of Francis, and liberals have insisted on another version, with both views of Francis being diametrically opposed. I have told them, ‘You are absolutely right!’
May he rest in peace.
