The Importance of Candor about Pope Francis

This is no time for polite silence or sentimental sycophancy.

The death of a public man who is both much loved but also gravely harmful — and Pope Francis definitely is both — can be an awkward time. For there is pressure either to pretend said man was something other than he was or to just be quiet. I can do neither with a good conscience, hence I wrote my initial post with restraint and at least a little trepidation.

During such times as these, there are always those who admonish us not to speak ill of the dead, that it’s uncharitable. And there is some wisdom in that in most cases, especially with the death of private people whose negative legacy, if any, is likely also private and limited. But that is not the case with Francis. Eric Sammons has said as much:

A social convention dictates that we not speak ill of the dead. The deceased person can’t defend himself, and we are liable to hurt the feelings of his mourning loved ones. I think we can all agree that there are times when this social convention is put aside; one of those times is when the person in question was a well-known figure who had taken on the mantle of a great responsibility and wielded power that had a profound impact on the world. It would be not just dishonest but silly to obfuscate the sad reality:

Francis was a terrible pope.

In his post about Francis’ legacy, Peter Kwasniewski quickly addresses concerns that sharp criticism of Francis at this time is uncharitable:

If my opinion seems too harsh or critical for some people’s tastes, try to understand it as a corrective to the virtual canonization that the departed pope is already receiving at the hands of countless pundits. Serious caution is in order: we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (hence my call for prayer), but we also don’t want, as it were, to canonize the baby. On the contrary, it is not a form of charity to pretend that the past twelve years have been anything other than a disaster, indeed a nightmare, for the Church, one largely fomented by this unfortunate Argentinian. I pray God will have mercy on his soul, but I will not lie about what he did here below.

I heartily agree. It does no good to be silent while there are countless efforts to canonize Francis. Both silence and sentimental pablum instead enables the continuation of the harm Francis has done to the Church. And that is uncharitable. Instead, out of love for the Church, we should expose and oppose the negative aspects of Francis’ legacy, which did not cease with his death, just as it was right to “oppose him to the face” while he was alive. (Galatians 2:11 ff.) (Of course, that was not easy to do as Francis often stiff-armed opponents, even if they were Cardinals, but anyway…)

Nor is silence or sentimental canonization charitable towards those Francis has directly harmed, such as those who have had the Traditional Latin Mass taken away from them. Speaking for myself, I love these faithful people too much to ignore what Francis did to them.

By the way, if you want one post on the legacy of Pope Francis, Kwasniewski’s post might be it. It is excellent and refers to a number of articles on the subject. If you wonder why I am so adamant about Francis, he and those he cites go through the pontificate better than I could.

SPECIAL POST: The End of a Pontificate from Hades

The historian in me can think of another reason why this is no time to be quiet. We owe to future generations a record that is as accurate as we can give them. We owe that to the Church as well. The historical record should be truthful and preserved for its own sake, but it also has consequences for the future. How we see the past affects how we proceed in the future. At the risk of stating the obvious, in a church context, tradition affects doctrine and practice. And false views of the past can sorely mislead. Yes, I know I may sound hackneyed in so saying, but it’s too true nonetheless.

So when should we not do our part to set down an accurate record? Should we have left that task to the popesplainers during Francis’ pontificate? Should we step aside now at his death while sycophants and deceivers flood various media to tell us Francis was this wonderful, compassionate, reforming humble Pope of mercy? In the future should we defer to overwhelmingly progressive academics as they twist and suppress the truth in line with their toxic ideologies and apostasies?

No, there is a lot of sentimentality and outright falsehood already being promulgated about the pontificate of Francis. It is meet and right to do our part to dispel it with accuracy and truth. Even if we fail and our truthful efforts are drowned out and memory-holed, we owe it to the Church and to future generations to try. And if that seems uncharitable to some, remember truth and love go together. And love lacking in truth is really perversion.

So, yes, we should love. And this Anglican has no problem praying for the soul of Pope Francis and has done so. But we must speak the truth in love. (Ephesians 4:15) And now is especially a time when truth is needed in the Church.