Goodbye, Pope Francis
They say that Pope Francis has “returned to the Father.” No—Pope Francis has gone to the Father. He has presented himself before the judgment of a just and merciful God. Only Christ, ascending into heaven, could truly return to the Father, because—Son of God, begotten before all ages—He came forth from the Father. Pope Francis, on the other hand, like every human creature, did not come forth from the Father but was created by God from nothing. And now he lives forever in the house of the Father.
Pope Francis has gone ahead of us to that place where all Christians hope to arrive: the house of the Father. He has not returned there, because he had never been there before. The Father’s house is not, for us, a déjà vu, but a place which the human eye has never seen. “He went ahead,” as the Alpini (Translator’s note: The Alpini are Italy’s elite mountain infantry corps, renowned for their resilience and close-knit esprit de corps, especially during the World Wars) say of their fallen comrades in war.
His final passage through the crowds the other day in St. Peter’s Square was deeply moving. It seems he did not heed the doctors’ advice to take utmost care of himself, and perhaps this last effort proved fatal. In that ultimate, generous gesture, I see the gift of his very life, offered in the physical condition of one no longer able to speak or do the things he once did. A final farewell, as though he knew the hour had come.
Francis has completed his struggle with the devil, a battle he often spoke to us about—and surely experienced firsthand. No one can offer such concrete and precise counsel without personally waging that fight. As a true Jesuit, he served us as a spiritual director.
Now Francis rests in peace with Jesus, of whom he was the Vicar. And if he always asked for prayers during his life, now it is we who pray for his soul, while he prays for us. A little while longer, and we hope to see him again among the saints in glory. He has gone ahead to prepare a place for us, so that where he is, we too may be—those of us who welcomed his guidance on this earth as Vicar of Christ.
His last public address—the Easter Angelus—was a crowning masterpiece among all his speeches. In it, we saw a Francis further refined by suffering, purified in spirit. He expressed noble and elevated sentiments, casting a wide and universal gaze over all humanity as a true common father of all peoples. His words bore heartfelt concern for the world’s many wars, offered a serene and reassuring outlook beyond death, and looked confidently toward the Resurrection in Christ. He entrusted all to the hands of God, invited us to conversion from sin, exhorted us to dialogue and to lay down arms, and called on all to trust in the help that comes from above, holding fast to the invincible hope of Easter.
It is heartening now to see the arrival of messages of condolence, admiration, and praise for his pontificate and for his humanitarian work, particularly in the cause of justice and peace, from heads of state, religious leaders, and political figures across the globe.
And yet, perhaps some caution is warranted. Christ Himself warned us not to rejoice too easily when the world speaks well of us, for it did the same with the false prophets. And the Apostle John reminds us that being hated by the world is often the mark of a true disciple. We might suspect, then, that certain praises now being lavished are not wholly disinterested, and may come from those who wish to exploit the Pope for their ends.
Indeed, when we consider the lives of the saints—beginning with Our Lord Himself—we find they were all opposed, and often persecuted, by the enemies of Christ. And we would be wrong to suppose such enemies no longer exist today. Why, then, are they not making their voices heard now? I believe there are two possible reasons: either they are afraid, or they hold him in contempt.
In any case, one of the great and undisputed merits of this pontificate is that it gave to the papacy a prestige perhaps never before seen, particularly in the realm of universal human values. It drew the attention and esteem of men and women of goodwill from every people, nation, culture, and religious tradition.
Which voice among the world’s leaders, more than that of Pope Francis, has succeeded in eliciting such respect for its wisdom, balance, and impartiality, free from any earthly or political interest, on the arduous, dramatic, and most delicate question of peace and justice in the world and among nations?
Where, however, I believe some observations are to be made regarding the pontificate of Pope Francis is in the realm of Church governance, which has been troubled for the past sixty years by the deeply painful conflict and scandalous rivalry between traditionalists and modernists. I believe Pope Benedict XVI had managed to act as a mediator between the two camps, but it seems to me that Pope Francis did not succeed in carrying forward Benedict’s work, owing to a tendency toward excessive indulgence towards the modernists and excessive severity towards the traditionalists.
Furthermore, Benedict did not limit himself to merely advocating for the implementation of the Second Vatican Council and opposing the hostility of traditionalists towards it. He also drew an extremely important distinction between a true and a false interpretation of the Council, and acknowledged that its pastoral section included some debatable points.
Pope Francis did not resume either of these discussions, contenting himself with a drastic assertion that whoever does not accept the Council is outside the Church. The result was a failure to recognize the legitimate part of the traditionalist critique of the Council’s excessive optimism, and the favoring of modernists who present themselves as heralds of the Council while falsifying it.
I believe the next Pope should take up the worthy aspects of Pope Francis’ pontificate—such as the promotion of the human values of fraternity, equality, liberty, mercy, pluralism, dialogue, and care for creation—but at the same time resume the interrupted work of Benedict, showing greater understanding towards traditionalists and applying firmer restraint to the modernists.
Moving beyond a pedestrian and managerial pastoralism, we must recover the doctrinal sensibility of a Saint Paul VI or a Pius XII, for the good of the pastoral mission itself, which, if deprived of concern for truth, becomes trapped in the labyrinth of history and the snares of relativism and worldliness.
Moreover, I would also suggest recovering the sensibility of Saint John Paul II, the Slavic Pope, for the reconciliation of the West with the East. In particular, the European peoples—and especially the Slavic peoples—must rediscover their Christian roots, dating from before the second millennium, when all European Christians were still in communion with Rome.
P. Giovanni Cavalcoli, OP
Fontanellato, 21 April 2025
Source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/arrivederci-papa-francesco.html