10 years ago today, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was elected Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter and supreme head of the Catholic Church. After a full decade as shepherd of the universal flock, he remains a deeply enigmatic figure. His clearly defined opposition to traditionalism, especially in its American form, leads many progressives to identify him as part of their team. But a passing acquaintance with any one of his magisterial documents is enough to show the radical incompatibility between his thought and mainstream progressive theology. Today’s anniversary will see a flood of articles published from all points of view within the Church, attempting to place these ten years in some kind of conventional frame, whether critical or laudatory. But most of the authors will have to live with the secret consciousness that their story leaves out some important countervailing evidence.
I gave my own sketch of the elements of Pope Francis’ thought most relevant to this substack in a commentary on Laudato Si’ a little over a year ago. That article focuses on one narrow aspect of the Pope’s activity, and is far from a complete portrait. But it contains one simple thought that I believe to be the key to solving the Francis enigma — and that certainly explains the data better than the most common alternatives.
The idea is this: Pope Francis is different because he grasps the depth of our current civilizational crisis to an unparalleled degree. In this, he is intellectually very close to the late Pope Benedict XVI, as they both draw heavily on Romano Guardini in order to describe the contours of the present situation. But whereas Benedict was a theologian and a professor, Francis is a man of action. His aggressive agenda has shocked and confused many who were content with the pontificate of Benedict. But on closer analysis almost all of his actions can be read as a natural response to their common diagnosis of our historical moment.
This behavior can be nothing other than enigmatic to someone who still sees modern secular civilization as a solid, durable structure. If the secularized “world” is a robust entity opposed to the Church, there are really only two options. Either change the Church so as to find a place in that world, or erect an equally comprehensive alternative structure in an effort to survive on the margins. Francis fits into neither category, because he denies the premise. He sees the secularized world in a process of accelerating and catastrophic collapse from within. From the perspective of faith, he reads that collapse as the natural consequence of the rupture of the relation with God. And the mission of Christ — participated by his disciples — is precisely to save the world by reconciling it to God.
Acting on this conviction means taking risks, sometimes big ones, and it often requires doing things that are incomprehensible from a purely human point of view. This Pope has always been ready to admit that he makes mistakes like any human leader, and that he really relies on the prayers of all his children in the Church for supernatural strength and guidance. But awareness of this key — his studied rejection of the common sociological premise behind progressivism and traditionalism alike — sheds light even on those mistakes, illuminating their underlying logic.
Even if you do not find this proposal immediately convincing, I invite you to try it out with a few examples of your own. Think of the papal words, decisions or attitudes most enigmatic to you, and see if this key opens the door.