R.I.P. Pope Francis: Destroyer And Despot

What was Pope Francis’s reputation as a bishop and priest while he lived in his native Argentina?

I knew the erstwhile Father Bergoglio and had personal meetings with him when he was designated auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires by Cardinal Antonio Quarracino in 1992, who was then the Archbishop of the capital city. During his time as a priest, I can recall one action on his part at the Universidad del Salvador, which was under Jesuits’ guidance at the time. He appeared to be a friendly, sincere person of sound doctrine. During the years of Marxist guerrilla warfare that afflicted Argentina for many years (in which many priests lamentably participated), he was decidedly opposed to what was called the Third World line of thinking and the Theology of Liberation. His first years as a bishop were spent likewise. His rise within the episcopate was quite rapid: he went for auxiliary bishop to coadjutor bishop with the right of succession, archbishop following Quarracino’s death, and finally cardinal. 

It was then a radical change came about when he took on a frankly progressive posture and quite frank support for modernist and leftist while at the same time showing hostility to everything of a traditional line of thinking. His years as archbishop and cardinal can be summed up in just a few words: he promoted everything bad and opposed everything good. It was a conspicuous and radical change of direction.

What do fellow Argentines think of Francis as a religious man?

In general, he is esteemed for his apparent humility, austere lifestyle, and for gestures of simplicity, for example, he used public transport rather than an official automobile. This pleased many people, even though these were actually trivialities. In the political sphere, however, he was controversial. In fact, leftists of the Peronist movement did not like him and considered him an opponent. As a young man, he was linked to the mainline Peronist movement.

What is the legacy of his ministry?

As an archbishop, it is quite negative. As Pope, his legacy is historically catastrophic. He leaves behind a devastated Church that is divided and in frank decline. He spread confusion and error. His administrative style was despotic, having implacably persecuted any opponents. 

Was Francis a reformer?

No, he was a destroyer. A revolutionary, in the negative sense of the word.

What do you find notable about his life?

The changes he made in pastoral and doctrinal issues. In speaking with priests and bishops who knew him well, they confided that he was not a man of convictions but of ambition. He always had a craving for power. And when he had it, he used it without limits.

How does Francis compare to his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI?

Francis represents an abrupt break from the above predecessors. John Paul II was a holy pope and a man of God. That cannot be said for Francis. With respect to Benedict XVI, the difference is profound. Pope Ratzinger was one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century, not only in the Church but the whole world. Francis, however, sought power who had very poor intellectual formation. On the other hand, while John Paul II and Benedict XVI sought to mitigate or overcome the negative consequences of the Second Vatican Council, Francis instead promoted and aggravated them.

How did Francis’ papacy differ from previous popes’? In what sense did his call to “hagan lio” make a mess?

In part, this was answered above. The famous “que hagan lio” was a bit of demagoguery directed at young people. The Church has no need of people who make a mess but who are faithful to the Gospels.

It has been said that the key to Francis’ pontificate was mercy. Do you agree?

No, I do not share that view. In any event, his idea of mercy was false: it was mercy that did not take sin into account. He spoke of including everyone into the Church, but never spoke of conversion.

Did he show mercy to people on the periphery?

I do not dispute that he may have been concerned about the poor and marginalized. We think that he did. But in my view, there was a great deal of demagoguery in this. His “option for the poor” was more of an ideological pose than a genuine attitude. Anyway, only God knows a man’s heart. 

What were the keys of his pontificate?

Primarily, it was an unhealthy desire to change everything, a kind of revolutionary reformism in the sense I mentioned earlier. This reformism seriously affected the life of the Church, at least in four fundamental ways: First, doctrinally, it increased the confusion that already existed before his arrival to the papacy; this especially affected matters relating to the moral order, as attested, among others, by Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans, and by his ecumenism, which led to a religious syncretism; Second, liturgically, it destroyed the patient work of restoration begun by Benedict XVI with his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum; his rejection of the Traditional Mass was visceral; let it suffice as an example, Traditionis Custodes, a document that restricted the millennia-old liturgy to the point of practically prohibiting it; Third, it diminished the meaning and dignity of the papacy and the Petrine primacy: he preferred to call himself "Bishop of Rome" rather than Vicar of Christ; Paradoxically, he exercised authority with a firm grip, with an authoritarianism rarely seen in the Church; Finally, his ecclesiology was frankly opposed to what, by Christ's own design, the Church is: a hierarchical communion. His famous "synodality" represents an attempt to "democratize" the Church as if it were a democratic parliament and not the Mystical Body of Christ.

If indeed no doctrinal changes were made during his pontificate, what did he reform?

There were doctrinal changes, as I mentioned before. Of course, these changes were covered up with pastoral excuses: "Doctrine doesn't change... but for pastoral reasons." This modus operandi, which had been in place since the Second Vatican Council, was commonplace during these twelve years of the pontificate that just concluded. As for whether he reformed anything, I reiterate what I said above: he was more of a demolitionist than a genuine reformer.

Have there been any successes in institutional reform in the Vatican?

I don't know the Vatican's situation in depth. But, according to some reliable testimonies, it cannot be said that there have been any successes.

How did Francis's pontificate affect the Church in Argentina? Did it revitalize it?

No, not at all. It was far from revitalizing it. On the contrary, unfortunately, the Church in Argentina is going through one of its worst moments. Our episcopate, with few exceptions, is lamentable. The Church's cultural and social influence is practically nil. Seminaries are empty due to a lack of vocations, churches are increasingly less crowded... a devastating panorama. The intention was to bring about a "spring" for the Church; but instead, a frigid winter ensued.

Dr. Mario Caponetto is a retired professor and physician who taught at various universities in Argentina and elsewhere who has frequently written on politics and religion.