How Pope Francis Followed in the Footsteps of John Paul II, and What This Might Mean for His Successor
John Paul II, Francis, and the evangelizing mission of modern Catholicism
The conclave is on! To keep you company while waiting for white smoke to come pouring out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, take a moment to read Krystian Schneyder’s latest piece on the continuities and tensions between Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. Krystian reminds us of the deep tensions between traditional “earthly” political categories of left and and right and the more nuanced doctrines of Catholic faith. To read the selection of the next pope through a purely political lens would be a mistake - The Editors
Krystian Schneyder
Editor: Peder Schaefer & Mathilde Turner
In 1978 Cardinal Albino Luciani died only 33 days after becoming Pope as John Paul I. This symbolic death brought a great change to the Catholic Church; its first non-Italian Pope in 455 years. Karol Józef Wojtyła, a young cardinal from Poland, a communist country, who worked in a quarry during the Nazi occupation of his country, took the name John Paul II in honour of his predecessor. In 2014 he was canonised together with John XXIII by Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, representing the continuity between all of them. It was appropriate that Pope Francis canonised Pope John Paul II, because rather than breaking from it, Francis continued the evangelising mission of his predecessors. Evangelising, both in the sense of spreading the gospel around the world, as well as transplanting it to new realities as John Paul II had done, made the Catholic Church a global organisation in the 20th and 21st centuries. In that sense, we can read the current papal conclave to choose Francis’ successor as an internal Vatican referendum on the direction of the church since John Paul II.
John Paul II is often remembered for his role in inspiring the end of communism in Poland and consequently in Eastern Europe. But in matters of Catholic faith and doctrine, he was even more important. He came to the Throne of St. Peter at a time when the Church was desperately trying to form a renewed identity in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which liberalised elements of liturgy — most notably introduced mass in vernacular languages — and modernised the Church in the 1960s.
John Paul II embraced the post-Vatican II Church, yet placed its reforms on a strong footing of doctrine. The Church was to be modern and closer to the people, but through faith. This was reflected in his emphasis on the ‘universal call to holiness’, the idea that all people are called to be holy. By welcoming everyone to holiness he aimed for a Church whose mission was to be both open and welcoming, while focused on faith and doctrine. This balancing act reflects one which is familiar to most Catholics, a reconciliation between a God who is both merciful and welcoming but just and demanding at the same time.
In a slight but familiar twist on John Paul II’s leadership, Pope Francis’ pontificate has been seen as focused on mercy. He emphasised caring for the poor, the sick, the excluded; he criticised anti-immigration policies, spoke to the homeless, blessed sex workers, and called LGBTQ people “children of God”. His more conservative religious critics have suggested that the Pope overly focused on God as a merciful father, forgetting his role as judge who is forgiving and yet demanding at the same time. I don’t believe that somebody with the religious sensibility of Pope Francis would have been this ignorant to the just nature of God; in fact, I believe his theology was as much based on his belief in God’s just nature as anything else.
For Pope Francis, it is precisely because God is a harsh father that he demands sacrifices from individuals. After all, he even demanded the ultimate sacrifice from his own son Jesus Christ. The greatest sacrifice for Francis was the act of forgiveness: it is not easy to forgive people who have wronged us or to feel mercy for people with whom we have little in common, but it is what is expected of us. Here, the nature of God as caring and merciful comes in: he is there to guide individuals in their struggles and provide them with strength, but the struggles must lead to the realisation of his mission of peace and love for all mankind, an objectively difficult task. Therefore, although John Paul II and Benedict XVI were seen as doctrinarians compared to Francis, his gospel, though emphasising mercy, is equally based on obedience and strict discipline.
This is visible through another tension which John Paul II had to manage as Pope, one that is at the heart of Catholic political philosophy: that between a conservative worldview and relatively progressive social teachings, at least compared to other contemporary religions. Whilst John Paul II is often remembered for his anti-communism and opposition to Latin American Liberation Theology, a movement which had mixed Christianity with Marxism, he had also preached the importance of charity and throughout his pontificate emphasised the importance of human dignity.
John Paul II’s emphasis on dignity was continued by Francis. Even though Francis has been called a progressive and sometimes criticised as a “left-wing Pope”, while still being seen “too conservative” by others, in truth he was neither progressive nor conservative. Instead, both wings of the Church criticized Francis, perhaps an ideal place for a Pope to be, respectfully challenging established doctrine. Categories of “right” and “left” apply to politics, but not to Catholic theology. It is important to remember this distinction between the political and the religious, because the next Pope will certainly not be elected solely on the basis of traditional political criteria.
Pope Francis had emphasised care for others: the poor, the weak, the many against the few. However, he did so within the confines of a religion which places discipline and faith as ideals at its heart. This is what often caused the confusion of lay commentators about how the Pope could have both made progressive political contributions to public debate and at the same time remain committed to conservative elements of liturgy, such as the sanctity of marriage or celibacy.
When John Paul II died in 2005, he was replaced by one of his closest aides, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI. This was seen as a continuation. After all, as a Cardinal, Ratzinger had collaborated with John Paul II in developing a theology. Yet, after just eight years, Benedict resigned in favour of Francis, and as evidenced by Francis’ pontificate, perhaps he was more of a true successor to John Paul II, despite theological differences. Perhaps this was why, at 85 years old, Benedict resigned, since he felt that someone else was better placed to continue the mission of his predecessor.
This raises an important question for the upcoming conclave. Will the cardinals elect the close associate of Pope Francis, Cardinal Pietro Parolin? Will they instead choose someone who embodies the late Pope’s call for a just world, Cardinal Luis Tagle? Or will they decide in favour of an outsider like Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa? Or maybe they might go for someone who to the outside world might seem like a brave choice but would calm some of the internal politics of the Vatican, the Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson, reportedly a strong contender for the position of pontiff at the 2013 conclave, and a “neutral” candidate from an African country.
One thing is certain, that in their isolation in the Vatican, the Cardinals are most likely not focusing on Trump’s tweets, nor even on the threat of war between Pakistan and India. Instead, they are likely to be thinking about the legacies of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, the two thousand-year old tradition of the Catholic Church; things that go beyond the election cycle or debates between “progressives” and “conservatives”. The Vatican has its own politics, and the choice of Pope is primarily a question on theology. For this reason, and due to the secrecy of the conclave, we simply do not know who might be the next Bishop of Rome. Not least if we try to understand the Catholic Church through the prism of “earthly politics” rather than its own faith system.
 | A guest post by
|