Reflections on the Papacy of Pope Francis

On Easter Monday morning, almost four days ago, Pope Francis passed away. The timing seemed rather odd to me at first, considering his health was steadily improving from a nearly fatal bout of pneumonia, and he was making public appearances on Easter Sunday. It turned out that the cause of death was a stroke followed by a heart attack (presumably in his sleep?) Anyway, so ended his over 12-year-long papacy. This week, I'm remembering and evaluating his papacy with all of its high points, low points, good characteristics, and bad characteristics.

The election of Pope Francis is the first papal election I remember clearly. While I do remember the end of John Paul II's papacy and the beginning of that of Benedict XVI, it was Francis' election that I actually remember paying attention to and hearing about. It came after Benedict XVI's surprising resignation, and I also remember that no news source I paid attention to at the time even mentioned Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as a likely new pope. That being said, Francis' election was exciting. Not only did we see a new papal name, but we also saw the first pope from the Americas (or any part of the "New World", for that matter).

We saw right away that Pope Francis was a humble and caring man. He chose to live in an apartment rather than the Pontifical Palace, and his papal name pointed to St. Francis of Assisi, the widely recognized champion of the poor. (As a side note, a lot of people expected that Francis' name would be from St. Francis Xavier, since the new pope was a Jesuit). In the first year or two, Pope Francis seemed to have little criticism, and people loved his focus on the poor. Liberals liked his comment of "Who am I to judge?" when talking about homosexuals seeking acceptance. Of course, Pope Francis was not condoning same-sex marriage or any other pro-homosexual idea, but that still caused a small stir.

Pope Francis was always a compassionate man, and ever faithful to defending the Catholic Church, but as his papacy continued, it seemed that his critics grew in number each year. The first real eyebrow-raising moment was when, in the encyclical Amoris Laetitia, he seemed to suggest that divorced couples could receive Holy Communion, even though the Church has historically considered divorce a mortal sin, meaning that divorced couples should not receive Holy Communion until they are back together. Catholics who believe global warming is overblown also didn't like the encyclical Laudato Si, although that one was more of a reminder that humans need to care for God's creation (whether global warming is a problem or not).

Shortly after this was when my high school's pilgrimage to Rome happened. On that trip, we saw Pope Francis on two occasions. Once was during an Angelus prayer that he led, during which we saw him from far away:

The other time was when we attended a papal audience, also in St. Peter's Square, which we arrived very early for to get front-row views. We saw him up close that time, though he was in the "popemobile" the whole time. My camera's battery died, so I wasn't able to snap a photo, but Pope Francis was still the only pope I've seen with my own eyes. We experienced his affability after the Angelus. As it was mid-day, he dismissed us all with a blessing and said (in Italian), "Have a good lunch!"

Although everyone I can think of who has fallen away from the Catholic Church did so during the papacy of Francis, my pilgrimage to Rome gave my faith a very big boost. Francis was even my favorite pope for a time, and my confirmation name is "Francis", after St. Francis of Assisi (and St. Francis Xavier too, actually), just like Francis' papal name. Pope Francis was always ready to travel to remote countries to meet with the often-small Catholic populations there, and he recognized strife between the Church and various groups which he hoped to resolve, such as in his visit to First Nations communities in Canada who had some hard feelings toward the Church following the discovery of supposed children's graves on Catholic boarding schools' properties. I don't know how much his visit and apologies helped to heal that particular divide, but he certainly visited in good faith with great sincerity and compassion.

There were, however, two major mistakes I believe Pope Francis made. One was the approval and participation in the Amazonian Synod of October 2019. That was when people from communities in the Amazon River region of Brazil came to the Vatican with some less-than-orthodox ideas and rituals. Some topics discussed included the ordination of deaconesses, married priests, and cassava flour-based hosts for Holy Communion. The rituals within that synod, however, were far worse. Catholic news was filled with images of what looked like pagan worship right in the Vatican, including the veneration of some strange statues of two pregnant women. Some tried to defend these as representing Saints Mary and Elizabeth, but those who brought the statues said they were not. Others believed they were idols representing a fertility goddess called Pachamama, which those attending the synod neither confirmed nor denied! Pope Francis himself used the name "Pachamama" in reference to the statues, which is alarming, unless he was just using the most common name they were being called. Some devout Catholics from Austria took matters into their own hands, removing the statues from the church where they were stored and pushing the statues off a bridge on the Tiber River. However, the statues were later recovered and used in ceremonies again. After this, my opinion of Pope Francis became mixed.

The other major mistake I believe Pope Francis made was his publication of Traditionis Custodes, which heavily restricted the use of the older forms of the Mass, generally called "the Latin Mass". Bishops were given authority to prohibit the Latin Mass within their dioceses, prevent new priests from using the Latin Mass, or move Latin Mass to buildings not serving as parish churches. "Traditional Catholics", as they are often called, already had some things to criticize in Pope Francis' papacy, but Traditionis Custodes really stirred the pot for some. Pope Francis seemed to think that Traditional Catholics are stuck in the past and don't want to accept it when the Catholic Church does something new. Although it is true that some Traditional Catholics don't like what the Second Vatican Council did, sometimes almost to the point of schism (for example, the Society of St. Pius X), most Traditional Catholics I know just like the Latin Mass better for its liturgical style, not because of any rebellious thoughts about the Second Vatican Council or other events from post-1962 Church history. That being said, it seems like Pope Francis' critics grew more numerous than ever after that, not just among Traditional Catholics but also among other conservative Catholics. Some stooped so low as to call Pope Francis "Mr. Bergoglio" or say other things that questioned his legitimacy as pope. I think that was uncalled for and proved Francis' point in regard to a small minority of Traditional Catholics, but I still think Traditionis Custodes was a bad move.

Throughout the last three years or so, I noticed Pope Francis look less healthy. He was using a cane and then a wheelchair most of the time and had to be hospitalized a few times for pneumonia. Most recently, of course, he was hospitalized for about a month, if I remember correctly, coming very near death that time. Only a week or two before he died, he was released from the hospital. Ironically, when J. D. Vance visited him on Easter, Vance told Francis that he was glad to see his health improved. The very next morning, Pope Francis had a severe stroke and died.

What is my opinion of the papacy of Pope Francis, overall? I say that although I think he was not the best pope, he was far from being the worst. He may have done some things that estranged him from part of his flock, the Catholic Church, but he had the compassion and faith that any average or good pope should have. It cannot be denied that Pope Francis practiced the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, received the sacraments, and was often in the categories of people called blessed by Christ in the Beatitudes. Therefore, I think Pope Francis' time in Purgatory will be short, if he is not in Heaven already. That being said, anyone who believes in praying for the dead should pray for his soul. Rest in peace, Pope Francis.

Bring Back Christian Holidays in the United States!

As Holy Week begins, I often think of how nice it would be if American schools got all of Holy Week and/or Easter Week off. My Mom has often told me that when she was in school, both public and private schools had Holy Week off. "Easter Break" and "Spring Break" were one and the same. However, by the time I was in school, no schools got Holy Week off. I have never heard of any school or college that gets Holy Week off anymore. At best, schools get Good Friday and Easter Monday off in addition to "Spring Break", which is always in or slightly before Lent. Not even the most faithfully Catholic schools or colleges, such as my alma mater, the University of Mary, have all of Holy Week off, and instead have a "Spring Break" in early or mid-March. It was irritating for me at South Dakota School of Mines during my second semester when I didn't have Easter Monday off. I took it off anyway because I had a day-long drive. The following year, then-governor Kristi Noem ordered South Dakota colleges to take Easter Monday off, which I greatly appreciated, though that Easter we were all home because of the pandemic that year anyway.

What confuses me about Spring Break versus Easter Break is not only that all the Catholic schools I know of have that separation now; the other confusing thing is that when I search online, some sources say that most American schools still do have Holy Week as their Spring Break, without naming any schools, districts, or states that do so. I'd like to know of a single one that does so, because I wish I went there for school! I guess I'll have to ask any visiting families this week if they are on Spring/Easter Break, and if so, where do they attend school?

That topic of the split between Easter Break and Spring Break across schools and decades is the first part of today's post. This second part is about the recognition of Christmas and Easter as Christian holidays. I've noticed that schools are quite consistent in their Christmas breaks or Winter breaks, in that the time between Christmas Eve and New Year's Day is always included. Sometimes, there is a week or two more on either end. Therefore, if you're Roman Catholic or Protestant, you at least get Christmas off. Orthodox or Eastern Catholic students, unfortunately, do not (usually) since their Christmas is January 7. Either way, while I approve of the timing of that break for the most part, public media and retail stores try to take the Christian identity of Christmas out, replacing the name of "Christmas" with "The Holidays" or just "Holiday", which is both anti-Christian and stupid. It's like calling December "The Months" or "Month". The event that Christmas celebrates is also replaced with Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, The Grinch, etc. Similarly, although I've never heard an alternate name for Easter, the event it celebrates is often replaced with the Easter Bunny, chocolate eggs, and jelly beans. Don't get me wrong, these are fun extras, but they are quite a stretch from the real reason we celebrate Christmas or Easter, and they can never completely replace the Christian meanings of those holidays. As much as some people might think that Christmas and Easter were originally pagan festivals marking the winter solstice and spring equinox, there's no denying that at some point they became holidays marking the birth and resurrection of Christ, respectively.

The third part of my post is about the Christian holidays seemingly forgotten in the United States. While Christmas and Easter are two very important days for Christians, there is a third: Pentecost. When was the last time you saw Pentecost marked on a secular calendar, or when was the last time you celebrated Pentecost with your family? In European countries, there are some traditions and festivities which remain, the most amusing of which, in my opinion, is the cheese-rolling in Brockworth, England. I would ask about whether there should be a Pentecost Break, but Pentecost usually happens after the last day of school anyway. Turning my attention toward Catholic holidays in particular, there are five or six which are holy days of obligation in the United States, meaning they should be treated like Sundays in terms of church attendance, celebration, and rest. Two are covered by Christmas break: Christmas itself and the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God (New Year's Day). If you live in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, or Vermont, Ascension Thursday is a holy day of obligation too. The Feast of the Assumption, August 15, tends to be during summer vacation. Finally, there are two holy days of obligation that would fall within the school year: All Saints Day (November 1st) and the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception (December 8th). Why are Catholic schools and colleges (again, even the most faithful ones) making teachers work on November 1st, December 8th, and Ascension Thursday (if you live in the states I mentioned), knowing full well that holy days of obligation are to be treated like Sundays? Similarly, why don't my Catholic coworkers ask off work for holy days of obligation? All of the holy days of obligation I have mentioned are public holidays in at least a handful of countries, even the ones with no official religion or the ones that are less religious than the United States.

In conclusion, secularization in the United States has gone too far. Not only does American society avoid honoring Christian holidays (or, at least, the Christian identity of them), but all the Christian holidays not marked on secular calendars are falling by the wayside, even among the most orthodox Christian schools and colleges. Cancel "Spring" Break, bring back Easter Break!

Not All Catholic Single Young Men Are Called to Be Priests

A few priests and old ladies throughout my life have either suggested or firmly believed that I should become a priest. Without context, that sounds like a pretty strong message from God that I should do so. However, if we reveal the context, and the broader picture of vocation and population trends, it is clear that I am not called to become a priest.

Here's the context. Most of the times I have experienced those priesthood recommendations, there were one or all of the following factors. The first is that all but one instance I can think of happened after I entered my 20s, the ripe age for attending a seminary. The second is that I am not with family members at mass (as has been the case when at college and after I moved out). The third is the outward reverence some have seen me do at mass. Now that all three factors are usually present, I seem to be getting those comments slightly more often.

Other Catholic single young men I have known have also had these same experiences. Coincidence? I think not! In fact, this specific demographic group - Catholic single young men - experience this so much that it's the stuff of memes, like this one from the Catholic Memes page on Facebook. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that those who tell us we should be priests are just putting these factors together, no matter how much they might believe God told them so.

Prayer and passion for vocations, at least in the United States, chiefly focuses on vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life (as in being a monk or nun). Let me just say that this is an honorable thing, with the reasons why, before I move on to the crisis that is being ignored. The Catholic Church could always use more priests, monks, and nuns who serve God with their whole heart, mind, and soul in obvious ways. These include staying single, living in a building dedicated to God, and punctuating their days with frequent prayers such as are found in the Liturgy of the Hours. If you look at statistics on catholic-hierarchy.org, you'll also see that the number of priests, monks, and nuns has generally been dropping. It's not dropping like a rock, but it is dropping, so it's no wonder there has been so much attention paid to recruiting more priests, monks, and nuns.

What many Catholics fail to notice, however, is that Catholic marriages are dropping too. Marriage is a vocation, and I bet many don't even know that. Holy Matrimony is the sacrament you undergo to get married, and Holy Orders is the sacrament you undergo to become a priest. It turns out that marriage as a vocation is declining much more than the celibate vocations. This Catholic News Agency article reports the decline in marriages is about twice as much! God Himself seems to be in favor of more marriage vocations than celibate vocations. While I can only provide anecdotes, I know of more Catholics who discerned a vocation to marriage in the 2010s and 2020s than Catholics who discerned a vocation to the priesthood or consecrated life. One of my recently married friends was often told he should be a priest before he got engaged. On two occasions, I have replied to someone who said she believes I should be a priest that God is calling me to be married instead. On both occasions, I was not taken seriously, especially when I admitted that I've never had a girlfriend. I even find that a little insulting. Should I be a priest just because a few people notice I don't have a young woman sitting next to me? Should all young men desiring marriage just give up and apply to a seminary if they're single longer than their peers?

Those who have commented that I should/will be a priest have ironically said so during times when the priesthood was not on my mind. Yes, there was a time when I was thinking about becoming a priest. That was from 4th through 8th grade, from the time I began altar serving to the time I doubted my faith. It seemed to me like a reasonable occupation for an altar server to seek, and I had difficulty imagining myself as a married man in the future at the time. Nobody ever said anything about me becoming a priest at that time. Was it because I was still a boy?

Moving on to high school, I experienced doubts for most of that time and never gave any vocation much thought. After a transformative pilgrimage to Rome and some good theology classes, however, my doubts went away, and I started giving vocations some thought again. I was told about three major vocations: the priesthood, consecrated life, and marriage. It was up to me to discern which vocation God was calling me to. I prayed in various ways about this, particularly during a Lenten retreat. I didn't quite understand why, but marriage seemed to be the vocation God was calling me to.

The answer to which vocation God is calling me to became clear during a Bible study at college. We were reading from 1 Corinthians 7, where St. Paul gives advice about celibacy versus marriage. He seems to prefer that men and women be celibate so as to give God undivided attention. However, St. Paul also says that those who struggle to control their passions should be married. I am one of those, as my only habitual sin involves lustful thoughts. Nobody who has ever told me I should be a priest ever knew that about me. And what St. Paul said makes a lot of sense. It is better for one who has sexual fantasies to follow through with his wife, producing good, than to be a priest and have sexual fantasies in vain, producing evil (and scandal to boot).

There is also a shortage of not just marriages but also the fruit of marriages, namely children. In over half the countries of the world, the fertility rate right now is below the replacement rate, which means that more people are dying than being born in those countries. You don't have to be a pro-life Christian to understand that this is a problem. Many economists and historians have pointed out how sub-replacement fertility rates cause not just population declines but also the collapse of civilizations in general, as Peter Zeihan points out in the book The End of the World is Just the Beginning. I guess China didn't even "need" a one-child policy if most people chose to have no kids or one kid, anyway. Of course, China itself realized that a one-child policy was a bad idea and now struggles to force its citizens to have more than one kid. I don't think the government should tell you how many kids you should have. We should, nonetheless, remember that marriage is a vocation, and that marriage is needed even more than the priesthood right now. Ideally, parents should have enough kids so that at least one of them can become a priest, monk, or nun, and at least one of the other kids can get married and prevent that family's extinction. I believe we are taking the wrong approach in assuming that devout single Catholics should be priests, monks, or nuns without even considering that he or she might be called to be a husband or wife. We should encourage vocations to marriage just as much as we encourage vocations to the priesthood or consecrated life.