Personally, I think he was a very good pope and I do consider myself trad. I will admit there are some things that he did that. I really don’t agree with especially with him being more aesthetically modern and as an American a little foreign (not anymore thanks to Leo). But whenever a lot of people bring him up some Catholics make him out to be like the antichrist, and some just think he’s another liberal Jesuit. in the end, he was a very good pope and a very kind and humble pope. Especially with his humble beginnings with him working as a bouncer. And almost every single interaction he had with children was priceless, the one where he comforted a kid that asked if his atheist dad was in heaven and when a kid wrote a letter to him asking if he could perform any miracle he said “ he would cure all sick children“. he openly advocated for traditional families, supported the pro-life movement, advocating for treating people even the ones we didn’t like with respect and dignity. And my favorite moment of him was when that female reporter was asking if women could ever become deacons, and he immediately shut her down. If I was to blame anyone, I would blame the media for the way a lot of people view him. For Catholics they really is no good mainstream media (Pope Leo actually recently spoke about this), the atheistic left wing media made about to be like an inside agent secretly destroying the Catholic Church and that he was this liberal hero, then the evangelical based right wing media spun the story very similar toarly that. And a lot of Catholics fell for it hook line, and sinker it’s just a shame that people think of him as this horrible pope when in reality, he was actually very good
He seriously cleaned up Vatican finances and corruption - something I feel is a huge achievement and often under acknowledged
Wasn’t the Cardinal Pell debacle under his tenure, though? The one person pushing to have a real audit of Vatican finances and it wasn’t allowed?
Yup!
Oops, the Francis Fanboys conveniently forget about that one.
There's quite a lot that Francis Fanboys have to conveniently forget, or misremember
like whatever people call the Catholic Church greedy you could always refer back to him. When he died he only had like $100 to his name a pair of shoes, a watch and a rosary.
Compare that to Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, and many other protestant pastors who are trying to get their fifth private jet
Even his grave wasnt paid by the Church, he secured the funds
And an entire nation state.
It's wild that this is the top-voted comment. Do people really think the Vatican finances and corruption got cleaned up? There were scandals all throughout Pope Francis' papacy, and the Vatican's finances and budget are in a ruinous state today.
My thought exactly. What was cleaned up, and how? By letting Becciu take the fall for a system that is blatantly corrupt and moribund?
Saying Francis "cleaned up Vatican finances and corruption" is little more than fantasy
To be clear - what Pope Francis succeeded at was institutional reform, this has trickled its way into the annual operating budget through the Vatican budgeting a small surplus (for the first time in a long time) but typically there’s a delay between the reforms and the front line results of it.
The major issue is the pensions gap which will take a long time to fix
How exactly did he cleanup Vatican finances and corruption? I thought the primary reason Prevost got elected was because of corruption and the dire status of the Curia and Vatican finances or am I misinformed?
[removed]
oof
Well you claimed he cleaned up Vatican finances which i just can't find any evidence of. Not trying to be hostile or a smart @ss or saying you are completely wrong. . .but Raymond Arroyo has reported extensively on the huge budget deficits and pension shortfall crisis that he left Leo to resolve.
I was referring to the institutional reforms Francis got over the line, that’s not the same thing as the state of the budget itself. A bad bank can have good money (and be losing it) and a good bank can be recovering from a weak position
Today the budget is at a surplus for the first time ever basically and that is a direct impact of his reforms
Also, chat gpt:
Here’s a clear summary of how Pope Francis worked to improve Vatican finances during his pontificate:
1) Centralizing and professionalizing financial management Francis created (and empowered) the Secretariat for the Economy to act as a central finance ministry, introducing modern financial frameworks, stronger internal controls, and professional oversight—bringing Vatican financial governance closer to international norms. 
He also restructured the Vatican Bank (the Institute for the Works of Religion, IOR): • Consolidated asset management by requiring Vatican departments to transfer their funds to the IOR, making it the central manager of the Holy See’s financial assets.  • Closed thousands of dormant or suspicious accounts to reduce opacity and risks.  • Appointed experienced lay financial professionals to leadership roles to modernize operations. 
2) Increasing transparency and regulatory compliance Francis pushed for compliance with international financial standards and anti-money-laundering rules. This helped improve the Vatican’s reputation and reduced suspicious activity reports, showing stronger oversight and reporting. 
He also changed Vatican law so that clerics accused of financial wrongdoing could be tried in lay criminal courts rather than only by Church tribunals. 
3) Cutting costs and tightening budgets He repeatedly cut senior Vatican salaries, reduced housing subsidies, froze new hiring, and urged Vatican officials (especially cardinals) to “tighten their belts”—all aimed at reducing the chronic budget deficit. 
Francis pushed for a zero-deficit goal and fiscal discipline across Vatican departments. 
4) Encouraging donations and external support Faced with ongoing deficits and unfunded pension liabilities, Francis created a commission to encourage donations from the global Catholic community and other benefactors to help balance the books. 
5) Cultural reform toward accountability Beyond technical reforms, Francis tried to shift Vatican culture toward greater financial responsibility and transparency, emphasizing solidarity, ethical use of resources, and accountability among Vatican leaders. 
⸻
Results and legacy • The Vatican’s financial controls and transparency improved measurably compared with past decades of scandals.  • Some structural deficits remain, and not all problems were fully solved—but the foundation for far more rigorous financial management was significantly strengthened under Francis. 
Note: Some reforms (especially the centralization of asset management under the IOR) have been adjusted or partially rolled back under Pope Leo XIV, but they reflect the lasting influence of Francis’s overhaul efforts. 
If you want, I can also break this down with specific dates and key documents (like Praedicate evangelium) that formalized these reforms.
No i appreciate your response. Wasn't trying to be hostile or come across as "anti Francis" Just wanted to make a point about some of the budget issues that was reported by EWTN and Raymond Arroyo
No, he didn't. Vatican finances are still a disaster. They are still profoundly corrupt. There's a viable theory that one reason we got Leo is because the American Church is loaded, the Vatican needs cash, and the college of cardinals figured an American pope can get the goods. That's because of the dire condition in which Pope Francis left things.
Pope Francis, may he rest in peace, got headlines for cleaning up finances and corruption. He was very, very good at getting headlines.
The actual things, though, not so much.
I suppose that's about how I feel about OP's whole theory of the case.
And didn’t everything with Cardinal Pell happen under his tenure? To include not allowing the audit to take place that +Pell arranged?
The American church is the opposite of loaded. Most churches here are barely scraping by.
We got some wealthy American Catholics tho.
Oh, yeah. American Catholics are loaded. I know for a fact that 4 families could support the needs of my parish for a year just by contributing a measly 1% of their net worth each. But my time as a CPA has taught me some very valuable lessons, one of which is unfortunately…priests have to continue to ask for money, because if they didn’t, nobody would contribute anything.
Another lesson: 90% of people don’t contribute anything at all and justify it in all sorts of ways. It’s depressing. The money is there, it’s just not in the church.
You need to cite some sources here because from what I research that is simply not true
https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1pm58y3/i_think_many_people_unfairly_hate_pope_francis/nu0u4rs/
I don't know what your sources are, and I don't know how you can look at the +Becciu trial or the fact that +Parolin (of all people) led on the first ballot at the conclave and think, "oh, this is going well and Vatican finances are in much better shape than in 2013" so I'll just relay an anecdote: I gave up completely on Vatican finances when Pope Francis hired an audit team and told them to keep any actual financial crimes they discovered on the DL. That was in 2023.
Moral corruption: Benedict apparently resigned in part because he was overwhelmed by grief at the corruption in the Church, so he gifted Pope Francis "The Box", a treasure chest full of all the intelligence Benedict had gathered on various cases. The Box promptly disappeared. We never heard of it again. It appears to have changed nothing. We never got an accounting over the McCarrick scandal. No heads rolled. Vos estis was a joke, because Francis rarely actually followed canon law anyway, and carved nice big loopholes into it. Pope Francis actively shielded Fr. Rupnik, which put the lie to all the nice headlines he summoned over his so-called seriousness on abuse. It was hardly the only case where the Holy Father privileged someone accused of abuse because he was some sort of ally. The Vatican's modus operandi remains the same: ignore everything until public pressure becomes insurmountable, then offer a sacrificial lamb to make the starry-eyed Catholic press think something might actually change.
Where did you see otherwise?
I can only hope Leo bringing American moneybags will carry along American accounting standards (or any accounting standards other than vibes)
Francis cured my decades long habit of checking the news about the pope everyday because he was always saying or doing something odd or outrageous. He was disappointing although I loved him.
Is there a source on this?
where does the corruption come from? is it in vatican ?
The people there.
Hey was happy to protect his guys. See von Boeselager
Catholics don’t want to put a spotlight on internal corruption
NonCatholics presumably don’t know or don’t want to give a pope positive credit
Plenty of Catholics do that though, even some of the Catholics in this post alone. I don’t think you can categorize either action into a specifically Catholic or NonCatholic thing.
So many people who hate him I think don't remember the state the church was in before his papacy or were in denial then about the problems.
He definitely didn't solve all the problems but what he did do is restore the global credibility of the church by making enough progress on them.
The most important thing to remember is to keep praying for any Pope. When Francis was seriously ill early this year I found myself drawn to checking each morning about his health, and reflecting upon how his papacy was sometimes controversial to me as a lowkey traditional Catholic (I was born during the final years of John XXIII so I've seen my share of Popes) and how Francis was undoubtedly aware his time was drawing to a close, and he would be meeting the Lord. It felt right and peaceful to just pray for him. To Jesus through Mary.
So when Leo was elected, I decided to pray for him every day also. Just for the Holy Spirit to guide him always. I try not to focus too much on whether I agree with everything a Pope does or says, and just pray for them. I think when we (in general) get on social media, we can think we have to critique everything as if we are experts, but this can become a trap, a temptation towards pride, and take our focus off the spiritual.
Amen!
This generation overuses the word "hate". For every actual hater there are thousands who were displeased, dismayed, and disturbed by his papacy. Some of that is on them, yeah. Some of it isn't. It's not hate.
I am sure, he forgives them.
I miss Pope Francis 😢
Me too. He was wonderful.
Traditionis Custodes.
And Amoris laetitia.
That one is filled with so many issues.
Or Dignitas Infinite.
So many issues that the cardinals had to publicly ask for clarification on how it wasn't heresy. He never responded.
When did the cardinals do this and do you have a direct source for it?
It's called a dubia
Funny enough, someone cataloged the events on Wikipedia page.
Just grab the sources it references there.
There are over 110 references listed on that page, would you be willing to point out some specific references among them which pertain to a dubia regarding the encyclicals, or which indicate Pope Francis never responded to that dubia?
For clarity, I’m not trying to be hostile or snarky, I’d just like to not have to look through every reference to try and find what the other person was referencing if you’ve already looked into those specific references.
You can find them under the Requests of Clarification section.
You will also find the header called dubia. If you're struggling, you can also use ctrl + F and type in the word dubia.
You can read that whole section to see the multiple letters that were sent requesting clarification and the lack of response is noted. The references can be found at the end of each paragraph, going from number 64 to 110.
It's a little more complicated than that. Four cardinals (not "the cardinals") which we can all consider rather "conservative" especially HE Raymond Burke, addressed "dubia" (=doubts) and asked for clarifications on the famous Chapter VIII. He denied their request for an audience and they indeed received no answer, which is a sovereign prerogative of the pope, he had no obligation of answering them.
The "heresy" accusation was made by a letter by 62 theologians and academics, mainly retired and mostly linked to traditionalist groups especially Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, excommunicated until 2009 and the diplomatic decision by his holiness Benedict XVI to revert the excommunication in hope of a reconciliation. His ordination as bishop is not regular and he is not in communion with the Church. Even the SSPX didn't accuse Francis of heresy but claimed that Amore Laetitia encouraged it, insisting on the distinction. I don't think the true word of this chapter is heresy, it doesn't contradict an article of faith or a revealed truth. At least it's a statement of doctrine, about which it is permitted even in some cases good to debate
Agreed.
My favorite test is if you ask a gay person if Pope Francis loves them, they usually answer "yes". If you ask if he approves of the way their living they answer "well... No"
Sounds like the vicar of Christ to me.
that’s what most people didn’t understand and the news blew out of proportion he never said that their way of living was OK but he still said we have to treat them like human beings
These days, too many people want the Pope to be exactly like they are, instead of honoring the Holy Father and learning from him.
One word: Rupnik.
you’re right that Pope Francis was unfairly treated as some modernist Jesuit, and that he did some good reforms of the Curia and faculties to absolve abortion and was himself orthodox in his beliefs.
The problem was and continues to be that many, many, many of his highest ranking officials are absolutely terrible, power hungry progressives with a massive axe to grind against anything that smells of conservatism.
As a result, in every way that matters, the Vatican during all of Francis’ reign has acted as a crushing machine to all things conservative. Sometimes, it’s been well deserved due to old abuse coming to light. Other times it’s been disproportionate and abusive of the powers granted to the offices.
There’s also the matter of Pope Francis’s relationship with the press in general. He held some longstanding friendships with members of the press whose objectives when covering him was to deliberately fudge anything he said to make it seem like the Pope was fudging Catholic teaching. This happened countless times during his papacy and requires countless questions from orthodox Catholics to the Vatican that often went unanswered or unqualified. That would make the eventual subsequent headline all the more confusing because often there wouldn’t be far less attention given to the orthodox statements.
Finally, another valid criticism of the Pope was that while he disliked the pomp of the papacy, he loved being able to “hold court” for lack of a better term, whereby he’d receive people whose grievances were with some thing or another that the Vatican had done and they’d request relief from something like Traditionea Custodes and he’d go “oh yes of course, I’ll be merciful” and allow individual groups that personally appealed to him carry on.
I really dont blame the Traditiones Custodes fiasco on Pope Francis. The vocal minority of traditionalists is at best vocally hostile and at worst barely in communion. He reacted to political pressurres inside the Curia.
Make no mistake: Francis was not a democratic pope, he was a Jesuit Superior through and through. He let everyone have a voice, to then do what he thought was best, because he exercised his capacity as an absolute monarch. He could be very authoritarian at times.
His pastoral approach, though, was much needed in the XXI century Church. And he was a good man, of deep personal Faith and Holiness, who I firmly believe is now in Heaven and shall operate many miracles. His errors were trying to do good. And with our new Gloriously reigning Pope, we shall see his correction.
There was a comprehensive, global study conducted on a diocesan level regarding extraordinary form in the dioceses. That study overwhelmingly concluded that Summorum Pontificium adoption had gone well and had been positive. A small minority of bishops reported strident opposition. The report was hidden by the Vatican office that conducted it until it was leaked recently. Pope Francis signed off on TC and is responsible for global disciplinary measures like this. If he didn’t know, then it reinforces the issue that I highlighted above, that he surrounded himself with corrupt and aggressively progressive people that have waged spiritually abusive lawfare against good Catholics.
Believing that the trads are mostly opposed to the Church is a feature of the terminally online and doesn’t reflect the reality on the ground.
I dislike and disagree with what people like Dr. Taylor Marshall have said about the Church, but I think they have a point that there exists essentially a self-reinforcing cabal within the Vatican that’s been perniciously hanging on since JPII and to the detriment of all Catholics.
Definitely. "Rad Trads" appear mostly just online. There's nothing wrong with liking the older form of the Roman liturgy, or liking the traditional stances of the Church. To equate that with Rad trads - borderline schismatics, is crazy.
I agree with you to some extent. But the traditionalists do not help themselves
"Look what you made me do!"
Again, generalizing online trads as representative of the whole is a huge mistake. In fact, the study showed that was the case. I am not a trad btw. I go to my local ordinary form parish and have for years.
My experience is that most real trads aren’t even online much to begin with.
Im not talking about ordinary trads, Im talking about hierarchs. Look at Cdl. Burke or Bp. Athanasius and you will see what I mean
Okay yeah. Those guys tend to be very strident and cross the line several times. I agree with that. Unsure why that would imply that collectively punishing all Catholics that prefer the extraordinary form is justified.
He was the pope we needed at the time, but I’m glad that Leo isn’t Francis 2.0. May he rest in peace.
every pope is the pope needed at the time
I am happy we have an American pope and a more aesthetically traditional one.
Francis debate aside, that's just not true.
Every single pope is not elected with the active will of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides the conclave, but It can be ignored. Every single pope has not been good.
Of course God can bring good from bad, but that's not the same thing as saying Every pope is the one needed at the time. Some popes have been failures. Some in the future probably will be too, whether politically, morally, etc.
yeah, but that’s why they vote for a specific pope.
For example, he was elected. It’s because of the ongoing evangelical and Pentecostal growth in South America due to the CIA trying to “civilize the savages”
I may be dense, but I truly don’t understand what you mean? It seems like an impossibility to say that several categorically awful medieval popes were elected because they “were what was needed at the time.”
Bad medieval popes were elected because the church went lax because the previous pope was good.
Its a circle of we're so back - > its so over - > we're so back
Pretending that the growth of Protestantism in South and Central America is due to the CIA instead of the Catholic faith doing a double self-destruction, first with the upheaval after Vatican II, second with liberation theology, is what some would call a "take."
It has maybe more to do with the complex recent history of the region, particularly after the various dictatorships with which many priests collaborated. Francis himself was accused of doing too little during the Argentinian dictatorship while he helped save many lives of priests and civilians when he was the head of the country's Jesuits. While the church has sometimes lost contact with the lower classes (a contact that Francis strove to cherish all his life), the evangelical movements are extremely proselyte and recruit their members among the poorest communities. Some of them, though, have gone on to become indecenctly rich and powerful enterprises, operating in a close, symbiotic relationship with the conservative political establishment and extending their networks internationally. As very conservative organizations, evangelical groups have played a part in encouraging the harder line that politics is now taking on social issues like in the US. And the rift between progressive and conservative catholics has admittedly done little to help its influence.
Im familiar with the region.
The CIA’s work in spreading evangelical Protestantism was tantamount. Don’t blame the Church for that problem just because some aspects of liberation theology were over-politicized.
Your country badly messed up ours.
Doesn't this thinking open can or worms? In all infallibility categories basically.
The Holy Spirit defends the Pope from binding the Church to error but makes zero guarantees on the willingness of the Pope to actually listen in non-binding matters.
My point was about the election part, Pope can mistake as a human, but why does the Holy Spirit not defend the election vs the decisions of the council?
For me it is a bit weird to not have faith in the Holy Spirits guidance in the election but to have in council.
Because the manner by which a Pope is chosen is, and always has been, a purely human decision. The Curia was not instituted by Christ.
Thank you very much for taking time to explain
Thank you for being cordial at my explanation :)
We needed active philanderers in the Middle Ages?
We always need a pope but that doesn't mean every man who becomes pope is the one we need. Pope Francis was the Pope we needed when we needed him, of this I am certain.
There is no requirement for Catholics to think every single Pope did a particularly good job. I, for one, am enjoying not waking up to "Oh boy, what did the Pope say this time?" and a much more hopeful relationship with the hierarchy for my faith practice. I do not think he was a bad man, but I do not think he was a good Pope.
A good pope would not have promulgated Fiducia supplicans, which twists itself in pretzels trying to justify the obviously unacceptable practice of blessing same-sex couples.
As the UK Confraternity of Catholic Clergy observed:
In Venezuela, Pope Francis is not very popular (and I'm not one of them). He collaborated with the Venezuelan dictatorship and allowed it to launder money from drug trafficking and prostitution in the Vatican, among many other things. If he is ever canonized, I will never accept him as a saint.
People tend to think in absolutes. Either a good pope or a heretic. Liberal or traditional…
Is it too much to expect a pope to uphold the doctrine of the faith as handed down to him by his predecessors? Can we not go a month or a year without more outrageous soundbites and ambiguity as had become commonplace under the last pontificate?
You just don't dislike "journalists" enough. As always.
I think there's still some people that need a reality check with Pope Francis papacy of chaos.
I would hardly call that a papery of chaos. We literally had a pope that dug up an old pope and put them on trial.
Reality check for you: Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, Traditiones Custodes, the Pachamana Incident, the Abu Dhabi document, the protection of Zanchetta, Grassi, McCarrick, Rupnik...
It’s convenient how the Francis fanboys just gloss over all those things, or have to resort to “muh cadaver synod!!!11!!”, as if any of that negates all the stuff we had to put up with under the last pontificate.
Many people unfairly hate the Pope. Pope Francis attracted more “friendly fire” than the last three popes, but I attribute that to toxicity growing within the church. He made mistakes, but he did a lot of good, and his encyclicals will remain an evergreen gift to the Church for the next thousand years, if there are a thousand.
Ah, how was Traditonis Custodes an evergreen gift, pray tell? Or Amoris Laetitia?
Unfairly? 😂 the man brought a lot of confusion to Catholics and the world.
no secular media did that not him granted he was a horrible speaker though
His autobiography "Hope" pretty much reconciled me with the Church. He has a special place in my heart.
Why do we have to love every pope? People have valid reasons to not like him, and as long as they’re respectful about it, that’s ok. And not all criticism is disrespectful.
Some people are overly sensitive about valid criticism. They see valid, respectful criticism and jump to “OMG why do you hate him!? 😭”
I think if we draw a distinction between a pontificate and a pontiff, he's one of my favourite Popes in the last 50+ years with such a beautiful Soul and desires for the Church. But he undoubtably had one of the worst Pontificates in modern history in terms of Pastoral issues and controversies. He lead first with his heart than his head, and while that lead him to be a wonderful man yet not to have made the best decisions, which lead to quite a bit of scandal and issues. He tried, but ultimately surrounded himself with the wrong type of people and let the media twist a lot of what he said.
I certainly did not hate Pope Francis, but I don't think he was the best pope. I was genuinely sad when he died, and I prayed for him when he was sick. I agree that he said and did a lot of good things, but he also did some very bad things. He caused a lot of confusion. He appointed some very bad bishops, like the Charlotte one. Traditiones Custodes was cruel and unfair. Maybe he was mislead, I don't know, but it was wrong. My archdiocese has had a long history of heterodox priests and bishops. Things were starting to get better, and I think that part of that may have had to do with the TLM. I am very blessed to have a very reverent novus ordo parish that I love, but I hope that the restrictions are lifted.
I love Pope Francis! He brought me closer to the Catholic Church and kept me involved during one of the darkest times of my spiritual life. Also the way he treated everyone with dignity and respect is something we could all learn from.
Is that why he lifted Rupnik’s automatic excommunication?
Very mixed positive and negative headlines in that picture.
Many people here call him a false Pope or Anti Pope. Lots of that “my personal faith knows better then everyone else”.
"All religions are paths to God"
you just took that out of context
**“All religions are a path to reach God. They are — to make a comparison — like different languages, different idioms, to get there. But God is God for everyone. And since God is God for everyone, we are all children of God.
‘But my God is more important than yours!’ Is this true? There is only one God, and we, our religions are languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian, but they are different paths. Understood?”**
Here is the full quote. Care to enlighten me on the missing context?
On it's face, heretical. No cogent argument otherwise. (Nor something that can be chalked up to giddy journalists misrepresenting reality.) And this wasn't the only time. In the Abu Dhabi statement he also compared religion to things of no moral import: sex, race, etc. It was one of his favorite false doctrines.
I was mad about the whole "blessing same sex relationship" scandal and also his "all religious lead to heaven" because now I had to explain to Protestants what he meant. And I look like an idiot every time
Just because you bury your head in the sand and cope with "it's not Francis, it's the media! He actually did nothing wrong" doesn't negate all the terrible things he did
Worst pope of my lifetime and first or second worst of the past 100 years no doubt
Who do you think would compete with him for the worst in the past century?
Paul VI / JPII.
I'll go point by point you made to refute you.
"Kindness" is the opposite of what I received from Pope Francis. He held little kindness to traditionalists. In his public comments, he was often unkind, loving to insult rather than inspire. When he passed Traditionis Custodes, he destroyed hundreds of communities throughout the world, increased tension in the Church, and personally dismayed Pope Emeritus Benedict WHO WAS STILL ALIVE and whom Pope Francis didn't even consult before overturning one of his most significant achievements. Or how about when he very kindly acquiesced to Holy Week being *cancelled because of an illness, something unheard of?
He forfeited Christian claims in his response.
Men should be judged not by the miracles they wish they could perform, but by the realities that they had actual power over.
By complaining about them breeding like rabbits and driving a wedge into Catholic moral teaching through Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans...
There's one plus; but even on this end he contradicted perennial Catholic teaching on the death penalty in order to be more "pro-life."
How did Pope Francis treat those he didn't like? He refused to meet with them and would insult them. Pope Francis loved insults.
He still let the question remain open and appointed people to navel-gaze debating about it when he should have just shut it down.
Pope Francis should get the blame. The twisting narratives of the media were a good excuse circa 2013-2017, but he played his cards later in his papacy, and there was a larger record to reference.
I defended Pope Francis for ten years, including against Protestants and sedevacantists. When he authorized the 2023 dubia and Fiducia Supplicans, both of which contained explicit contradictions of the deposit of faith, he broke my spirit in a way I still haven't recovered from. Why? Because he violated the principle of non-contradiction: being Catholic meant one thing in 1923, and a different thing in 2023, if one were to take what Pope Francis said as true. The change in teaching on the death penalty is an example of the same problem: a Catholic in 2013 had reference to a different catechism than one in 2019, and the one in 2019 was justified by no authority other than citations to Pope Francis's speeches. This grave situation of ambiguity and contradiction has nothing to do with the media. It has everything to do with the documents released under his tenure.
Second, on the abuse crisis, Pope Francis was worse than his predecessors. This is because he actively protected sex abusers (including a convicted abuser) such as Bp. Zanchetta and Fr. Rupnik.
Third, Pope Francis went on world tours where he spent his time playing ball for moral and religious relativism instead of preaching the Gospel. For instance, when he signed the Abu Dhabi statement and affirmed that God wills religions just like he wills male and female, or when he went to Singapore last year and preached religious relativism to the young. Why should anyone become Catholic if the Pope doesn't seem to think it's a big deal? Give me a break.
I pray for his soul, but I'm glad we have a new pope. I don't wake up dreading what news is going to come out of the Vatican anymore. But I'm not going to stand by and let people rewrite history and pretend that Pope Francis was a great pope; he was a menace.
His protection of Rupnik and Zanchetta should always be at the forefront of any discussion of his legacy. As well as his rehabilitation of Cardinal McCarrick after Benedict had grounded him.
I think you've nailed every major point. To your list I would add that the (Cardinal McCarrick-brokered) Vatican-China deal was and continues to be a disaster and stain on his legacy.
You can add me to the list of people who loved Pope Francis, prayed daily for him, continue to pray for his soul ... but is very relieved that we have Pope Leo as the Vicar of Christ after an excruciating decade.
I think the Chinese bishops would strongly disagree, as would the people who had to sell their parish due to Traditiones Custodes.
I miss him dearly 😢 I am appreciative of Pope Leo, do not mistake my words!
I miss him, but the fact that we have a Midwestern American pope it’s still amazing to me
He was our Pope in a very difficult time for the world, and I think that made him a lightning rod for a lot of people's misplaced anger
I have had four Popes now over the course of my 35 years of life(John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and Leo XIV) and I consider myself blessed that all four were Good Men, Good Christians, and Good Leaders of our Church
Hate is a strong word. His treatment of the Order of Malta was disgusting, however. And of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Honestly, the list is pretty long.
Francis’ papacy will hands down go down as one of the most disastrous papacies in history due to: 1) the confusion he caused; 2) the hyper-leftist appointments, and 3) the heinous documents he issued. It will take decades to recover. Reunification with the East is near impossible with what he has done.
1) Traditiones Custodes 2) Amoris Laetitia 3) Fiducia Supplicans.
Oh yeah, because the same Francis who presided over unprecedentedly close relations with the Ecu. Pat. of Constantinople etc is in the same ballpark as the Pope who dug up his predecessor to try him, the Popes who went to Avignon, and the Pope who had several children.
Edit: Francis was not a perfect Pontiff, no way. To call his papacy one of the most disastrous is however disingenuous.
Really puts it into perspective lol. I feel like calling Francis one of the worst in history is the Catholic equivalent of calling a presidential candidate Hitler. Like yeah we don’t like them but let’s not diminish reality
First of all the East is the problem here not us. For hundreds of years, we’ve been trying and they’re the ones that are too stubborn.
Secondly, you’re just buying into all the fake nonsense. The media is putting out. did you not read all the things that he did?
The media loved him. So what are you talking about?
Are you shocked at all the downvotes you got from this page?
When Francis’ nastiness toward poor Benedict XVI resulted in the shoving of his corpse in a van and hardly mentioning him at his funeral, it revealed major, major problems not just with Francis’ papacy, but with his character.
Read these documents and report back: 1. Traditiones Custodes (published under patently false and ideological pretenses) 2. Amoris Laetitia 3. Fiducia Supplicans (Praise God tens of millions of Eastern Catholics and Africans refused to enforce this heinous, heretical, and scandalous document).
Found the guy who only saw "Francis" and didn't read any further or look at the pic before commenting.
No one is perfect, I loved him and love Pope Leo
[removed]
Just remember:
The brighter the picture, the darker the negative.
Being a good and holy man does not mean that person will be a good Pope, and Pope Francis is a great example of that. He was a terrible executive that caused harm and confusion due to his ignorance and incompetence. He did not have the necessary skills to be a good Pope, and he probably would have better served the Church spending his life as a parish priest.
He always felt like a good friend and a grandfather rolled into one. I think if I ran into him he’d truly be excited to see me, even though we never met. He just had a warmth about him that cut through differences. He’s my second favorite pope after JPII.
Didn't he also say that the trans ideology is evil?
Yes if you look hard enough, that’s actually on the list
Pope Francis was a great Pope and the one we needed at the time. There are some genuine criticisms to be made of him but the vast majority of them were lies and slander.
He made churchgoing a bitter trial.
Pope Francis granting all priests the faculties to absolve abortion, previously only bishops could, and condemning capital punishment are his most important legacies.
Capital punishment is not inherently wrong. Pope Francis caused a lot of confusion with his unilateral edit to the catechism. Catholicism has been okay with the death penalty used justly for 1900 years.
That edit didn't say it can't be used justly it said the conditions for it to be just are virtually impossible to happen in modern rich countries
Francis said the death penalty was "inadmissible" without exception, not just in "modern rich countries".
What conditions justified the use of the death penalty during the pontificate of Pius XII (1950s) that do not hold today in at least some part of the world?
In the case of the Catechism, it's more complicated than that.
Clearly, the teaching that it's inadmissible is a consequence of the belief that the conditions for a just death penalty are almost impossible.
Consequently, it would according to the Catechism not be wrong to administer the death penalty in a place where these developments haven't taken place.
But again, what actually are those developments? Developed countries absolutely had the capacity to safely imprison people for life well before the 1950s. At the same time, some developing countries arguably don't have that capacity today.
I struggle with the view that enacting the death penalty for the sake of it (retribution, not defense of others) isn’t wrong, though, as it seems that Catholics would view that all ending of human life with the intent of killing (notice that this leaves exceptions for self-defense, since the intent there is not to kill but to simply deter an aggressor) is wrong.
The Catechism lists them? Read the preceding paragraphs in full.
The Catechism (seemingly) denies that these developments took place, though it's hard to pinpoint when due to the slow nature of the Magisterium changing or "updating" Church teaching.
Still, what I said stands, according to the Catechism's principles, the death penalty would not be inadmissible in a place where the proper developments haven't taken place.
Well what I said is what is on the catechism at least, as for the specific conditions that are better ways to make imprisoned criminal unable to do dangerous things/evade, already JPII said death penality was only to be used when extremely necessary to defend society
As for the specific changes in the jail system compared to 1950, back then jail security depended almost exclusively on guards and physical obstacles, now we have technological means that are able to detect foul play beyond human error and better isolation protocols to protect even other prisoners from dangerous criminals
He also compared it to genocide in Dignitas Infinite, and said it always strips the person of their inherent dignity.
So I guess Paul was wrong?
That's your kind interpretation of it. It does not say that in the catechism.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
That's was the catechism says, now taking also account of what previous popes said (JPII specifically) that death penality should be an extreme measure to be used only for the security of society is easy to deduce that the point of the edit is that the situation in which death penality is just, at least at the moment, is not possible (at least in developed countries when the cited systems of detention are possible), in other words there aren't the conditions for a just death penality
Even New Testament tolerates slavery. This makes it not inherently evil either.
Paul returned the escaped slave Onesimus to his master Philemon with only a request to free him. He also instructed slaves to obey their masters as they would Christ and for masters to treat their slaves fairly.
I doubt you would find a christian today that endorses slavery and, like the death penalty, it is condemned in the catechism, CCC 2414.
I adored him. He was one of the best Popes
Honestly, I agree. Objectively speaking, he was fairly middle of the road
Pope Francis was a victim of a lot of manufactured scandals from inside and outside the church. You had bishops and cardinals openly calling for his resignation (or worse) in a manner which unprecedented in modern history. The people who called him a “dictator” or “cruel” have no idea how much grace he extended to them by simply ignoring them. Under the reign of Benedict or John Paul, these types of comments would have been met with harsh consequences.
They often twisted his words or took him out of context. He was a great man
I love Pope Francis
The fact he was so hated was just a sign that he really was a follower of Christ. The world hates such people.
I really miss him...He really cared about everybody.
I have some sympathy with Francis but this argument that he must be doing good because people hated him is a fallacy. I see it repeated often on this sub in different scenarios.
Being a Christian -> being hated is different from being hated -> being a Christian.
Plenty of people are hated who are definitely not doing God’s work….
What a load of twaddle. Was there anything Christ-like in his shamefaced covering for his sex abusing buddies Zanchetta and Rupnik?
It is still too early for a complete and objective judgment on his pontificate.
Why? His actions speak for themselves. By what objective lens could anyone see anything good about his shameful rehabilitation of McCarrick and his covering for Zanchetta and Rupnik?
I totally understand why he implemented restrictions on the Latin Mass. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a beautiful mass, but far too often those who only attend the Latin Mass are fanatical about it. I have personally met many Latin Mass goers who don’t recognize Novus Ordo masses, reject Vatican II, and generally carry a “holier than thou” mentality.
Latin Mass fanatics will often critique Protestants by saying, “By whose authority do you teach?” Then, in the same breath, they say Vatican II shouldn’t be recognized.
As a church, having the most fanatically faithful members who do not even recognize the validity of the mainstream part of the church is unhealthy for the entire church.
I don’t think the Latin Mass should be banned, and I consider myself an otherwise conservative Catholic, but I totally understand Pope Francis’s restrictions on it.
I totally agree with you. It’s almost like a gateway to sedevacantism, I’ve had many other people tell me that the second council is invalid (I’m not saying it. It’s perfect) and a lot of them like to be holier than the pope.
As a traditional Catholic, I like to tell other traditional Catholics, do you know what the most traditional Catholic thing to do is? Submitting to the church
Exactly. It is almost like a gateway to sedevacantism. I doubt there are many Novus Ordo followers who decide to reject the authority of the Pope.
I personally feel like if you reject the authority of Vatican II, it is wayyy easier to reject the authority of the sitting Pope. So I absolutely understand why Pope Francis would intervene on the Latin Mass.
Don't get me wrong, I also totally understand why people got mad at Pope Francis for not doing nearly enough to address people like Fr. James Martin. But that's a separate issue, and I feel like Francis tried really hard to adhere to the Church's teaching that homosexuals shouldn't be subjected to discrimination, but also firmly state the Church’s view on marriage. Let's not forget every time Francis was asked about gay marriage being accepted in the Church, he firmly said it would never happen.
and you could still think the council did a lot of things wrong personally I think a lot of the stuff they did was wrong, but I still have to accept it
The unfortunate part with a lot of people coming back to church is that there are a lot of holier than thou people. Like just because you go to daily mass wear a veil and treat everyone like they’re below you does not make you a good person.
💯💯💯
He will be remembered as one of the finest popes of his century, a period marked already by several memorable pontificates. He inherited the first vacancy of the Chair of St Peter in seven hundred years. He had to contend with conspiracy theories about his predecessor's resignation on day one and for the full duration of his tenure there were some that worked to undermine his authority and to create a rift with the then-living Benedict (the Pope emeritus, however, was too wise to be used, such as in the duplicitous affair by certain senior prelates to attach his name to a book critical of Francis).
Then he shephered the flock through all the nonsense peddled by American-centric trad media, the global pandemic, ongoing financial crises in the Church, and a very real erosion of faith in the Church after decades of the abuse crisis.
Did he completely resolve every crisis? No. But did he bungle those situations as completely as his forebearers, some of whom we now reckon as saints? No he did not. His pastoral legacy inspired so many who had closed themselves off to the Church; his impact on the lapsed and many converts has been profound.
As in every age, the grumblers worked to sow seeds of confusion and division against Pope Francis and they continue to do so even now. Some choose to be ahistorical about reality and claim Francis had some "war" on traditionalists – even though Pope Saint Paul VI instituted the new Mass over the old, even though Pope Saint John Paul II excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre, even though Pope Benedict XVI extended the olive branch to the SSPX only to have it swatted back at him by their insistence (against facts) that they were already in full communion, even though Pope Francis himself extended faculties to those trad congregations in irregular communion during the Jubilee of Mercy and carved out numerous sizeable exceptions to the limits on the old Mass, and even though some praise Pope Leo and condemn Francis when they are almost identical in word, belief, and deed.
But facts seldom matter to people only content to tear a saintly man down. He will be vindicated and likely venerated in time and the bulk of not only the Catholic world, but the broader world outside the Church honors his memory greatly.
When others chew sour grapes, keep drinking wine.
The matter of fact is much more nuanced than you describe. For example, I'm not sure I'd call the continuous decline in seminarian numbers from 2013-2025 a success, or the continued dramatic decline of Catholic identification in Latin America
Looking at the laundry list of predators mysteriously protected, in a surprising number instances by those in the Vatican itself, from the consequences of their actions over the last decade or so, I'm not sure I would want to backhandedly smear John Paul II in this way
This description of events is so inaccurate, I'm not sure if "dishonest" is putting it strongly enough
Pope Leo is forging his own path, as most every pope does for better or worse
This is rather self-revealing.
If he is remembered at all, it will be as someone more interested in confusing platitudes than doctrinal clarity, and as someone who targeted the orthodox for "disobedience" while letting plain, open heterodoxy fester in the Church. Your attempts to paint St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI as equally or more opposed to traditionalist practice of the Liturgy is intellectually offensive. Nobody is that ignorant. We know the truth, and twisting it like that is gross and makes your entire side of this discussion look like nothing but politicking instead of having legitimate devotion.
Baseddd
He has been great as few before
Any Pope after Pope John XXIII gets some grace from me as they have an impossible challenge after John read the Third Secret of Fatima and refused to follow it saying it isn’t our concern. There is no coming back from outright refusing that instruction. 60 years after being told our downfall would start with Ukraine and Moscow if we refuse, people still don’t want to connect the dots.
no, that was John Paul the second that read the third secret after a guy held up an airplane because of it
But I see what you mean seds for example think pius was the last true pope and they’re only basis off of it is because of aesthetics
John XXIII
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
John Paul II was 39 years old when the secret was supposed to be given to the world.
Was Traditionis Custodes harsh? Maybe. Was it necessary? Yes. Was it the pope’s fault that some bishops were too harsh? No. I’ve seen people who were so proud of how catholic they were saying that the Mass of St Paul VI is wrong, evil, illicit, that the catechism is heretical, that the modern canonizations are invalid or that Vatican II isn’t binding. I’ve seen people saying the eastern Churches should be latinized by force, and many other very fun things. Should those people be allowed to continue in semi-schism?
Pope Francis is awesome. I hope he’ll be declared a Saint some day
He didnt like tridentine mass rite... But I dont hate him...
I'm always reminded of this:
"Pope Francis in Africa: Is the continent the Catholic Church's great hope?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49564397
Based and Papacypilled 🤣
I often wonder about American media mistranslating and misquoting him when I read an article that said he said there was too much “faggotry” in the seminaries. When asked about openly gay men becoming priests. I’m glad we have a Pope that speaks perfect English less likely to mistranslate or misquote him
4K HD? X'D
Hey, I just respectfully asked a question! 🙄😭
A lot of what they said about him was unjust at best and slanderous/diabolical lies at worst.