Tuesday, April 22, 2025

Part I

---

The Controversial Papacy of Pope Francis Comes to an End: Pope Francis Dies at 88

Pope Francis died early Monday morning, early yesterday morning, and by the time the news had reached the United States, it was very clear that a transition in the Roman Catholic Church is underway.

The surprise came in the sense of timing because Pope Francis had appeared in a public event having to do with Easter, and he made that public appearance just on Sunday. He also met in a very brief meeting with US Vice President JD Vance. And those events, along with a couple of other details on his calendar were the very last acts in the 12-year pontificate of Pope Francis. Francis died at age 88, and he had long suffered with respiratory challenges and with other health challenges at advanced age.

88 is old for a Pope. And in the case of Pope Francis, he had only one healthy lung, at least part of another lung had been removed by surgery decades earlier. He had developed recurring bouts with respiratory illnesses including the dreaded pneumonia, and it appeared in the period between February and early March that indeed he might pass away. In fact, it was rumored that he was very close to death, but the headlines then became that he left the hospital and that he was resuming at least some of his papal duties and responsibilities, including at least some limited public events. And then came surprising news that in the very early morning there at the Vatican in Vatican City, Pope Francis had died.

That sets into process a series of events that are absolutely medieval and in some cases even older in the tradition of the papacy. And by the time the Vatican will make announcements expected later today about the exact timetable, the big schedule of what’s going to happen is that there will be a very public funeral for the Pope. There will be a meeting of all of the cardinals of the church. There will then be a gathering days later of the cardinal electors, that is the cardinals who are eligible to vote on the next Pope.

And over the process of the next 20 to 30 days, there will be the transition from Pope Francis to a successor pope. And already the way the Roman Catholic Church works and the way the media and the larger world works, a lot of speculation is already being diverted towards who will be the next Pope. And on that we have no particular insight.

This is one of the issues when it comes to something like a monarchy. When you have, let’s just say the death of a monarch of England, the news story is simultaneously, here’s the old king, here’s the new king, or more recently, here is the now deceased queen, and here is the new king. And it’s very hard to keep those two things separated, but it is clear that at least up front the big story is the death of the monarch.

And then almost immediately the big question is “Who will follow?” But unlike a hereditary monarchy, there is no immediate monarch. By the way, when a monarch of England dies, the announcement is simply that in the case of a king, the king is dead, and then long live the king. Meaning that there is an immediate succession. The whole idea of a hereditary monarchy is that there is simply a heartbeat between one monarch and the next.

And this just underlines the fact that the papacy is a monarchy. It is a monarchy but it is not an inherited monarchy. There were medieval periods when it almost seemed that it was, but it is not an inherited monarchy. It is instead a monarchy and the monarch, the supreme pontiff, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is elected by designated cardinals who come together in the College of Cardinals.

And by the way, this has to do with age. The eligible electors will then choose the next pope. So the stories are already going both ways. We need to return to Pope Francis and we need to put his life and his papacy and his death into context. And yes, evangelicals need to pay close attention to this story because we need to understand that some of the challenges we will encounter in this story are encountered in our churches and denominations as well.

So how do we get Pope Francis? Well, before Pope Francis, you have two very important popes that preceded him. Most importantly, John Paul II and then Benedict XVI. John Paul II rose to prominence at the very height of the Cold War. And the first Polish Pope was a history-making pope, not only because of his long pontificate, but because of his conservatism, which was in one sense unexpected because he had been fairly liberal, at least in some positions earlier in his career. But the forces of the late modern age in the last half of the 20th century forced him into a more conservative position, and his papacy was net conservative in terms of the Roman Catholic Church.

He issued classic encyclicals having to do with the Pope’s declaration as official church doctrine of the sanctity of human life as affirmation of historic Catholic teachings on the gift of life and on ontology. And that included human sexuality and gender. But behind all of that was the Pope’s massive affirmation–that is Pope John Paul II’s massive affirmation–of revealed truth, indeed what he called the splendor of truth.

He affirmed the reality of objective, knowable, revealed truth in an age of postmodern relativism, and that was very much the same kind of struggle that evangelical Protestants were facing. But of course, he was the pope of the Church of Rome and he had a lieutenant of sorts and that lieutenant was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and he became head of the Sacred Congregation as it was known. And that is the official Vatican unit for the defense of the Catholic faith.

It is the fruit, and the organizational representation of the inquisition in the modern world. You can change the name of it, Pope Francis did change the name of it, but the bottom line is that is what it is. And in that case, you often had Cardinal Ratzinger referred to as Pope John Paul II’s German Rottweiler. It was not said as a compliment. But the very reason that liberals hated him is the reason that conservatives loved him.

And as the lieutenant and oftentimes the one who was advising and even writing for Pope John Paul II, Ratzinger was loved and hated, but he was elected the successor to John Paul II and he became Pope Benedict XVI. He was massively influential as a theologian. And so you had John Paul, the conservative philosopher, followed by Pope Benedict XVI, who was the conservative theologian and doctrinal watchman, and then you had Pope Francis.

And remember that when it comes to the transition between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, it was not that Pope Benedict died. John Paul II died, like most the vast majority of popes before him, followed by a successor pope. Benedict XVI retired from the papacy, but even as there’s no modern analogy to that, you have to go back centuries to find a resigned pope. The fact is no one knows exactly what to do with a retired pope.

And so there was this uneasy coexistence within the confines of the Vatican of a Pope and a former Pope. But there was also a sense that what the Roman Catholic cardinals were doing 12 years ago when electing Pope Francis, they were electing a correction or at least a course shift from John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

And this came to the great pleasure, none of the conservatives in the church but the liberals. So 12 years ago when Benedict retired, they had to elect a new pope and the man who was at the top of most lists was the Cardinal Archbishop in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio was already well known and indeed he was the favorite of some in the cardinal meeting, the College of Cardinals in the conclave that led to the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

He was already known. He was a known quantity and he was pushed by many who were hoping for more doctrinal and moral elasticity in the church. They did not get what they wanted at the death of John Paul II when they ended up with Pope Benedict XVI, but with the retirement of Benedict XVI, and that in the context of a basic sense of exhaustion in the Vatican, not only in terms of many modern challenges, but in the face of many scandals as well.

The reality is that Pope Francis, as he became known 12 years ago, was understood to be a course correction, and to the great encouragement of the liberals in the church, and he set about making a reputation for suggesting liberal change in the church. In some cases suggesting wide-scale, very broad, very sweeping doctrinal and moral change in the church. The bottom line is he never delivered on it, but he did suggest it over and over again.

When Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as Pope 12 years ago and became Francis the first. He took the name of Francis and that was to recall St. Francis of Assisi, and he was not only the first Argentinian elected pope, he was the first pope from what has been called the New World from the Americas, and he was the first pope who was a Jesuit. And inside Catholic circles that’s absolutely huge and also indicative that’s pointing to a direction.

The Jesuits back in the medieval era were known for their doctrinal rigidity, but in the more modern era, they have been known as agents for more of an agenda of social justice within the Roman Catholic Church. And Pope Francis was very much a representation of that particular trajectory.

He changed so much of the messaging coming out of the Vatican on matters of economics, on matters of all kinds of what would be packaged as social justice issues. Pope Francis was in a different world than Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

When it came to Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, very close relations with US Catholic leadership, conservative US Catholic leadership. Very close relations with the United States. Let’s just go back to Pope John Paul II in the context of the Cold War. He was a crucial factor in the crackup of the Soviet Union. And in particular what he saw as the liberation of his own homeland, Poland, from Soviet domination.

And so he was very much encouraging towards the labor movement known as solidarity, that eventually became the wedge that was used to separate Poland from its totalitarian leadership under the control, or at least domination of the Soviet Union. And that was also done in concert with other major leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and notably, Ronald Reagan the President of the United States. There was a sense of common action, common concern, common worldview, even, when it came to the danger of totalitarianism and the particular evil of communism when it came to those Western leaders, especially President Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

Pope Benedict XVI was seen as a successor to that, but he came from Germany and in Germany the ascendant energy in the Roman Catholic Church is not conservative, but very liberal. But Cardinal Ratzinger was a decided doctrinal conservative by the time he came to the Sacred Congregation, not to mention by the time he came to the papacy, and as I mentioned, Pope Francis was in many ways the opposite. He was encouraged by and he encouraged in turn, the liberal forces in the Roman Catholic Church.

So in the United States, just to give an example, Pope Francis was celebrated by liberals in the church hoping for doctrinal and moral change, also celebrating every single gesture they saw in that direction. He was feared by the conservatives in terms of the impact he would have on the church. The very thing that the liberals hoped for is what the conservatives were simply praying against. That is to say they did not want to see those changes come, but it is very interesting to note that the only American Catholics who were promoted by Pope Francis and were in any sense close to him were those who were also pressing for a more liberal vision of the church.

There were some very powerful conservative American Archbishops who certainly should have become Cardinals, but they did not, and that is because Pope Francis was loading the College of Cardinals with those of a more liberal perspective, certainly a more liberal agenda for the church. Even in terms of their background, the contrast is really interesting. Pope John Paul II, academically trained philosopher. When you came to Pope Benedict XVI, academically trained theologian. When you came to Pope Francis, his only graduate work was really in the area of social work.

When he was elected pope, Pope Francis turned around and sent many symbolic statements about change in the church, and of course it was done with respect, with at least official respect to the popes who had come before him. Remember the claim of the papacy is a continuity in terms of this papal responsibility. So even as a pope maybe a change agent, Pope John the 23rd in the 20th century was considered one such change agent.

You fast-forward and you go to Pope Francis, he wanted to be a change agent, but you have to talk about a certain continuity and a certain discontinuity if you’re going to be Pope. And so there were a lot of official statements of respect for continuity, but there were a lot of winks and nods towards discontinuity, that is to say toward more liberal change.

Part II

---

‘Who Am I to Judge?’: The Liberal Legacy of Pope Francis – What Comes Next?

And all of that became really, really clear on a flight. That’s right on an airline flight. Early in his pontificate, Pope Francis went to South America for an official papal visit, and on the way back, on the plane from South America back to Rome, the Pope got into a now infamous conversation with reporters.

One reporter asked a question as to whether or not there was a “gay lobby.” That’s the term that was used, a homosexual lobby inside the papal curia. Francis responded by simply saying, “I haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with the word gay on it.” As if that was a serious response. He then went on famously to say, “But if someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has goodwill, then who am I to judge?”

Well, the immediate response to that is you’re the Pope, it is your job to judge. You are supposed to be, at least by the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, the very person who is entrusted with making that kind of judgment and with making certain that that judgment is made. Remember that the Pope is enthroned with incredible language. He’s not only the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church declares him to be the Vicar of Christ, the successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Patriarch of the West, Bishop of Rome and Servant of the Servants of God.

When you have those titles, it’s rather irrational to ask the question, “Who am I to judge?” Look at your ring. I would suggest that those words who am I to judge rather perfectly encapsulate the papacy of Pope Francis. Because you’ll notice he doesn’t make a clear moral declaration there at all. It’s his job to make a clear moral declaration. It is his job to say, “Here is revealed truth. Here is creation order. Here is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, and by the way, on this issue when it comes to human sexuality, it is the Christian consensus, which is held not only by the Roman Catholic Church on the authority of church doctrine, it’s held by Protestant evangelicals on the basis of Scripture, as is demonstrated also in creation order.”

And so who am I to judge? This is a warning by the way to every single evangelical Christian. When you’re in a situation where there is a clear teaching of Scripture and you are asked about it, you can’t answer with “Who am I to judge?” On the basis of the authority of Scripture, we have to give a biblical answer, and this is particularly true for those who are invested with spiritual responsibility.

The last thing a Protestant pastor can ask with integrity is, “Who am I to judge?” This doesn’t mean that we are judging on the basis of our own authority. It means we are as the New Testament makes very clear to judge all things on the basis of Scripture and where Scripture speaks clearly, it is our job to speak clearly.

That I think is the bottom line problem with the papacy of Pope Francis. It wasn’t so much that he moved the church in a liberal direction in doctrine or in moral teaching. He never followed through with that. There were hints. There were nods. There were suggestions. There were winks, and especially there were statements such as, “Who am I to judge?”

You also had concrete actions, the Pope took some actions suggesting that the church should bless some same-sex unions or some same-sex couples, but then again, maybe not exactly as was understood, but it is still abundantly unclear. The lack of clarity turns out to be the pastoral point here. 

If you think I’m putting too much on those words, “Who am I to judge?” Let me point out that another observer of the Roman Catholic Church, journalist Philip Shenon, not from my theological neighborhood, got to the very essence of what Pope Francis was doing in those words, “Who am I to judge?” When he wrote, “No five words would be so talked about in the modern history of the church since they seem to undo centuries of pronouncements in which the Vatican had condemned homosexuality as an intrinsic moral evil.” 

So you’ll notice the word there is that the Pope had appeared to do so. And this Pope seemed to enjoy appearing to do so, but the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue is exactly what it was when Pope Francis became Pope. This is the liberalism, the progressivism of suggestion. It is a liberalism of mood. It’s the liberalism of a pastoral smile that I believe is at the expense of the doctrinal responsibility of his own church and his own position. This is why Catholic conservatives were so troubled by Pope Francis. It is because they saw him as a direct threat, not so much because of the speed with which he was making official changes. He really didn’t make many, but because of the suggestiveness, which has everything to do with the mood of the church going forward and the predominating worldview of the church going forward. But there’s more to it than that because one of the most important stewardship invested in the papacy is the power of appointment and especially to the College of Cardinals and in particular those who will be of the age qualified to be electors at the conclave.

And this is where Pope Francis is pretty assiduously appointed those whom at least he expects to continue in a more progressive direction. Already so much of the speculation is who will be the next Pope, but that means that conservatives in the Roman Catholic Church have to be very concerned about this. I know many of them well, I know they are. And yet at the same time, this is the power that is invested in that College of Cardinals when it is officially ceded for the election of a new Pope with the qualified electors and time will tell.

There’s an old adage in the Roman Catholic Church and it comes down to fat Pope, skinny Pope, which is to say that at least to some degree when the College of Cardinals meet, they often want something that is both continuity and discontinuity. They want a Pope, but if they just had a fat Pope, maybe they elect this time of skinny Pope. You understand the metaphor.

However, the assumption is that Pope Francis understanding the strains between liberals and conservatives in his church has tilted the curia in a more liberal direction, certainly hoping that that would outlast him, outlive him. And as a matter of fact, as I say, he had this progressivist liberal suggestiveness, but he really didn’t follow through the substantial changes. The priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church is still all male. The Catholic Church still defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman according to Catholic teaching. The official Catholic teaching on ordered and disordered sexuality is–at least in terms of dogma and doctrine–official statements, it is exactly what it was before.

The Pope, he certainly moved the church to the left, at least in a lot of policy statements about climate change and other issues. And some of that, by the way, thrilled the Left, but a lot of it was just merely cosmetic. And of course the Left loved him for that. And so you by the way, also have someone such as EJ Dionne writer for the Washington Post, a Catholic of more liberal bent.

He also, by the way, picked out the words, “Who am I to judge?” In the piece he wrote after the Pope’s death on Monday, simply asking, “Who imagined a pope would use the words, who am I to judge?” And, well, now, it’s not only something that we would imagine, it’s happened and now over a decade ago. The big question is what now?

Part III

---

Mere Suggestion is Not Leadership: Christians Need to Watch If Their Leaders Wink to the Left – That Wink is an Opening Door to Liberal Theology

In a piece I wrote yesterday for World Magazine, I made the point that Francis liked to push progressivist messages to liberal activists and the progressive wing of his church. He offered weirdly leftist comments to reporters and journalists and sent signals about liberalization. To some degree, he rehabilitated the Marxism of the liberation theologians. He also condemned Western capitalism.

And I think the Pope probably sincerely believed that he was serving human good in pushing in more leftist economic directions. You just have to ask the question, “Where in the world has that ever worked?” But then again we can’t ask him that question now.

Pope Francis suggested liberalization and the liberals loved him for it. He never actually delivered it in substance, but he did set the stage for a massive shift to the Left, and we just have to wonder what will happen now. The election of the next Pope then takes on enormous consequence because if it is a Pope as liberal as Pope Francis, not to mention a Pope more liberal than Pope Francis, then you’re likely to see lasting liberal change, substantial liberal change.

And here’s where we have to watch as evangelical Christians. The strains within the Roman Catholic Church are often described as the strains between Germany and Africa, so to speak, with Germany being the Western secular liberal force and Africa being the doctrinally conservative, morally conservative force within the Catholicism.

Now, by the way, Catholic numbers in Africa are growing. Catholic numbers in Europe are falling, but Germany has the money far more than Africa. And when you are the Pope and you just take a look at the Vatican, you realize that money does speak loudly. It’s going to be very interesting to see how that goes. But for evangelical Christians, the big lessons here, number one, we cannot allow the leadership of suggestion. Mere suggestion is not leadership, it’s down to substance, and this is where we must hold our leaders accountable for doctrinal and moral fidelity to Scripture and to Scripture alone.

You have to be very watchful of a form of Christian leadership that winks at shifts to the Left because that wink is the opening and the defenses go down because that wink is the opening, and then there is a desensitization to the issue. And the next thing you know, it’s not only an opening, it is liberal momentum through an open door. That open door, that momentum didn’t really come into effect with Pope Francis, but the question is, will his legacy be that he flung open the door?

The stewardship of truth is indeed a Protestant evangelical responsibility. We do not believe in the claim of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the magisterium, and of course, the papacy. We don’t believe in any earthly monarchy of a spiritual nature. And as a matter of fact, we see that as a very dangerous confusion.

We don’t have any equivalent to the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church or to the papacy. There is no central address for evangelical Protestant Christianity. But we do need to recognize that the theological and moral challenges are parallel for us. There is no safety in terms of the challenge that is now faced by the Roman Catholic Church between the left and the right. There is no place of neutrality when it comes to those issues among evangelical Christians as well.

All of this is pointing to, by the way, the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has massive cultural influence in the entire world. And so even though evangelicals, to say the very least, don’t have and don’t want to vote when it comes to who is the next Pope, there is more at stake here when it comes to the momentum on many of these issues all over the world.

I ended my piece at World Magazine by just saying, “You just have to wonder if somewhere in Rome a stone mason is carving a new memorial stone with the words, ‘Who am I to judge?'” I think it’s just incredibly important that we recognize that when it comes to the late Pope, his most famous words were not a statement, but a question.

So even as there are millions around the world who are grieving the death of the Pope, there are serious issues here on the line and in the midst of a moment like this, and there will be many more in days to come, it is up to us to try to think about these issues biblically and carefully together. There are so many other issues swirling about us in the world, we’ll tackle some of those tomorrow.