Welcome back to the Deep Dive, where we take
a monumental stack of sources, articles, historical
texts, and deep investigative reports and give
you the distilled insight in record time. And
today our mission is to trace the, well, the
really improbable journey of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
A man who, for so many, was the definitive global
reformer of the Catholic Church. We're tracking
his life from his working class roots in Argentina
right up to his death in 2025. And what a papacy
it was, just defined by constant institutional
upheaval. That's right. We are unpacking the
full, intense history of Pope Francis. And he
wasn't just historic for being the first Jesuit
or the first Latin American. I mean, he was the
first non -European born pope since the 8th century.
Since Pope Gregory III, who was Syrian, that
alone is staggering. It is. And his 12 -year
papacy starting in 2013. It was a period of,
well, rapid institutional shifts, a massive change
in tone on social justice. An intense controversy,
both inside and outside the Vatican walls. Let's
not forget that. Absolutely not. Our source material
today is incredibly comprehensive. It covers
his surprising early career. including some very
unconventional jobs. And the enduring shadow
of Argentina's dirty war. The conflicting narratives
there are just crucial to understanding him.
We'll also get into the dramatic details of his
election, his radical, no -frills approach to
governance, and the relentless diplomatic work
he undertook across the globe. Especially in
places like Ukraine, China, and the Middle East.
So our goal is to extract the essential insights
and those surprising facts that will get you
up to speed on one of the most consequential
popes in modern history. We want you to understand
not just what he did. But why he felt he had
to do it. Exactly. OK, let's unpack this. So
let's start in the very beginning. Flores, Buenos
Aires. Right. Juan Mario Bergoglio was born there
in 1936. And this foundational story is so crucial
because it speaks to an awareness of political
and economic displacement that, you know, it
really defined his entire career. career. His
family was of Italian origin, but the key thing
is they were immigrants. They came over from
the Piedmont region in 1929. Right. And they
came for a very specific, deeply political reason.
They were fleeing the fascist rule of Benito
Mussolini. So that experience of political exile,
of understanding what it means to be pushed out
by a dictatorial regime, that had to be formative
for him. It must have been. especially for a
young boy who would grow up to preach a gospel
of inclusion. His father was an accountant, so
the family was stable, but they were certainly
not wealthy. The background is fascinating, but
his early resume, I mean, that's where the story
gets really unique. Before he even thought about
the seminary, he got a degree that, well, very
few future popes share. Indeed. The source confirms
he graduated with a chemical technician's diploma.
A chemical technician? Yep. From a technical
high school. It suggests a mind that's, you know,
grounded in practical application and precision.
But wait, we have to talk about the jobs that
came even before that. Yes. The jobs that immediately
tell you everything you need to know about the
common touch. He became famous for decades later.
You mean the man who would eventually wear the
fisherman's ring was once literally working the
door? He was a bouncer. He was a bouncer and
he also worked as a janitor. And look, these
details aren't just colorful anecdotes. They
ground him. Right. This is a future pope who
understands what it's like to clean the floors,
to manage unruly crowds. It gives him a real
world perspective that most of his predecessors,
you know, drawn from more aristocratic or purely
academic backgrounds, they just didn't have that.
A bouncer, a janitor, a chemical technician,
and then a pope. That level of transparency about
his past, it seems to be a key part of the image
he later cultivated. The leader who understands
the common person's struggle. Exactly. But his
path to the priesthood, it was also nearly cut
short by a severe lifelong health crisis. A huge
one. At age 21, he developed a life -threatening
case of pneumonia and had three cysts on his
lung. And it was serious enough that they had
to operate. They did. It required the excision
of a significant part of one lung. And that chronic
lung damage, it never truly healed. The sources
show it resurfaced violently late in his life,
requiring extensive hospitalization and even
mechanical ventilation in his final year, 2025.
So it's a powerful reminder that his entire adult
life was lived with this underlying physical
frailty. Absolutely. And his actual vocation.
The decision to join the Jesuits, it came from
a really human and unexpected moment. Yeah, the
source material is very clear on this. He was
actually on his way to celebrate Spring Day with
friends. Such as a normal young guy. Exactly.
And he stopped by a church and decided to go
to confession. He was so profoundly inspired
by the priest's insight and spiritual guidance
that right then and there, he felt the calling.
He entered the Society of Jesus as a novice in
1958. He also confessed later on that as a young
seminarian, Marion, he briefly doubted his career
because he developed a crush on a girl. I think
that tiny, deeply human detail immediately separates
him from the more, you know, ethereal image we
have of a pontiff. He was dealing with universal
human struggles, even while training for one
of the most demanding spiritual roles in the
world. And that ability to acknowledge frailty,
both physical and emotional, it seems so central
to his later message of mercy. It really is.
After he made his initial vows in 1960, he got
his licentiate in philosophy. And then for several
years, he actually taught literature and psychology
in secondary schools before his ordination as
a priest in 1969. And then we see his rise within
the Jesuit order was, well, pretty rapid. He
becomes the Jesuit provincial superior in Argentina
from 1973 to 1979. He was a major leader while
still in his 30s. He was. But this leadership
role, it eventually led... to some really deep
friction with his own order. So it wasn't a smooth
ride. Not at all. It created a fissure that lasted
for decades. After his term as provincial, he
was named rector of the theological faculty.
But by 1986, he was replaced. The new superior
general who came in, he favored emphasizing social
justice and direct political action. Ah, so elements
associated with liberation theology. Exactly.
And Bergoglio, by contrast, was focused more
on traditional Catholic orthodoxy and what's
called popular religiosity. So there was already
a clear ideological split between his approach
and... and the sort of prevailing leftward shift
in the society of Jesus at the time. He was actually
out of sync with his own order. Which is extraordinary
when you think about it. He was replaced. He
went to Frankfurt to study, considering a dissertation
on the German -Italian theologian Romano Gardini's
work on contrast. Contrast. That's fitting. It
is. The focus was on theological tension and
opposition. He never finished the degree, but
the internal distance just grew and grew. So
you're saying the very first Jesuit pope was
fundamentally an outsider to his own order for
decades. What did he sacrifice internally by
maintaining that distance? He sacrificed a great
deal of comfort and influence. By 1992, the relationship
was, for all intents and purposes, estranged.
Jesuit authorities specifically asked him not
to live in Jesuit residences because of the ongoing
tensions. Wow. Yeah. Tensions over his views
on Catholic orthodoxy and his opposition to the
political dimensions of liberation theology,
which was very popular then. This virtual exile
from his own spiritual family, the Jesuits. It
lasted right up until the day he was elected
pope. That just underscores his political independence
and I guess a stubborn adherence to his own pastoral
vision. Absolutely. Which brings us to his role
as Archbishop of Buenos Aires from 1998 to 2013.
This long tenure really cemented the persona
that the world later came to know as Pope Francis.
The man of radical simplicity, but also the man
who was completely unafraid of political or institutional
pressure. And as archbishop, his life wasn't
just humble. It was deliberately ascetic. Oh,
yeah. He famously lived in a small apartment
instead of the elegant bishop's residence. He
rejected the chauffeur -driven car in favor of
public transport. He cooked his own meals. And
this wasn't just a quirky preference, was it?
It was a consistent statement about prioritizing
substance over status? Right. a statement and
that radical humility was paired with incredibly
strict financial discipline which was um urgently
needed in the archdiocese at the time why what
was the situation The archdiocese was nearing
bankruptcy, largely due to high internal spending
and really poor fiscal management. Bergoglio
stepped in, enforced draconian fiscal discipline,
sold off the archdiocese's bank shares, and moved
their accounts to regular international banks
to ensure transparency. So he was already practicing
rigorous financial reform at a local level. long
before he was ever given the mandate to clean
up the Vatican. Precisely. The experience was
there. And this financial integrity was matched
by his deep commitment to the marginalized, which
earned him the nickname Slum Bishop. He was the
Valero bishop. He was known for his major initiative
to dramatically increase the church's presence
in the villas, Missouri, the poor shanty towns
of Buenos Aires. And what did that look like
in practice? He essentially doubled the number
of priests working there and visited these areas
frequently himself. This wasn't just, you know,
outreach for the cameras. It was an effort to
physically embed the church among the suffering.
Reinforcing his later statement that the true
development of people is measured in the face
of suffering. Exactly that. However, this period,
specifically the 1970s, when he was the Jesuit
provincial, it cast the longest shadow over his
Argentine years. We're talking about the allegations
regarding his role during the brutal dirty war.
And this is where we see deeply conflicting narratives
in the source material about his actions. It's
very complex. So the controversy centers specifically
on the disappearance and torture of two Jesuit
priests, Orlando Iorio and Franz Jalix, in 1976.
What was the accusation? The accusation was grave.
It was that Bergoglio, as their superior, failed
to protect them. Or worse, that he had effectively
dismissed them from the Society of Jesus right
before their arrest, which critics claimed was
a signal to the military junta that they were,
you know, fair game. But the defense, which is
detailed heavily in the sources, it paints a
completely different picture. A completely different
one. A portrait of a man quietly working behind
the scenes to save lives at immense personal
risk. But what's the evidence for that side of
the story? Well, Bergoglio himself claimed he
worked directly with the regime, interceding
specifically with the dictator Jorge Rafael Videla
on the priest's behalf. He believed that may
have secured their release and saved their lives.
And there's more, right? Oh, yeah. Authorized
accounts state he sheltered dissidents on church
property. He once even gave his own identity
papers to a man who looked like him so that he
could flee the country. A former judge, Alicia
Oliveira, she corroborated this, stating Bergoglio
was anguished by the dictatorship and actively
helped people escape. And what about the priests
themselves? Their testimony seems to have shifted
over time. It's complex. Initially, Yorio was
definitely critical, accusing Bergoglio of doing
nothing to free them. However, later testimony
really altered the narrative. Friends Jalix,
who spent five months in captivity, issued a
crucial clarifying statement after Francis's
election. What did he say? He confirmed that,
and I'm quoting here, it is wrong to assert that
our capture took place at the initiative of Father
Bergoglio and that Bergoglio did not denounce
them. So while the situation remains politically
charged. The weight of later testimonies and
investigations seems to have defended his integrity.
It does. And you have major human rights advocates
coming to his defense. Nobel Peace Prize laureate
Adolfo Perez Esquivel stated definitively that
Bergoglio never collaborated with the dictatorship.
So the picture that emerges is one of a man navigating
a moral tightrope in a period where everyone
was under surveillance. I think that's fair.
It's clear he was working against the regime
in secret, even if his public, non -confrontational
approach was later misinterpreted by some. So,
having navigated the shadows of a dictatorship,
Bergoglio was clearly unafraid of political pressure.
And that grit was immediately tested by the democratically
elected government, specifically the populist
left -wing regime of the Kirchners. Oh, that
relationship with Presidents Nestor and Christina
Kirchner was notoriously tense. Nestor Kirchner
even considered Bergoglio a political rival.
A rival. He viewed the archbishop's popularity
and his moral authority as a direct threat to
his own political power. And the ultimate friction
point was the 2010 same -sex marriage legislation.
That was the big one. Bergoglio vehemently and
publicly opposed the bill, which he called a
destructive pretension against the plan of God.
It was a huge public clash. And that fiery public
opposition was seen as a strategic error by some,
but the entire relationship changed. I mean,
overnight, when he was elected pope. It was what
political analysts called a dramatic Copernican
shift. by christina kirchner suddenly francis
was a global phenomenon and she fully embraced
him she even met privately with him before his
inauguration a hugely important symbolic meeting
yeah it just demonstrated how his moral authority
now transcended national politics completely
we should also remember that his eventual election
in 2013 it wasn't entirely out of the blue he
had already been a major contender in the previous
conclave in 2005 a very reluctant contender but
yes he was made a cardinal in 2001 by John Paul
II, and reports from the 2005 conclave, which
rely on credible, though anonymous, cardinal
sources, they claim that Bergoglio was the main
challenger to Cardinal Ratzinger. Who became
Benedict VI. Right. And supposedly, Bergoglio
received 40 votes at one point in the third ballot,
which showed significant internal support. And
he performed this, well, extraordinary and selfless
act to end what was seen as a deadlock between
the two leading figures. He reportedly made an
emotional plea to his fellow cardinals, asking
them to stop voting for him. Why would he do
that? His motivation was to prevent the conclave
from delaying the election of a clear pope any
further. It speaks volumes about his character.
He actively tried to suppress his own election
to prioritize clarity and stability for the church.
It shows he was not a careerist. So all this
history... The humility, the financial discipline,
the political independence, it all culminated
in the 2013 election. He was elected on the fifth
ballot. And everything about that first appearance
on the balcony immediately signaled that the
status quo was over. Starting with the name,
Francis. After St. Francis of Assisi, it was
the first profound statement emphasizing concern
for the poor, for peace, for creation. The source
highlights he chose the name after Brazilian
Cardinal Claudio Hums embraced him and whispered,
Don't forget the poor. And he insisted on being
called simply Francis. Yeah. No Roman numeral.
Right. Another way of simplifying the ancient
office from the very start. And the dismantling
of formality was instant and intentional. He
walked out in a simple white cassock, refusing
the traditional red mazetta cape. That cape,
often trimmed with ermine, it symbolized all
the palm of the office. He wanted none of it.
He was trading symbolism for substance. He kept
the simple iron pectoral cross he had worn as
archbishop rather than accepting the traditional
gold one. And he used silver for his fisherman's
ring. All of it was sending a visual message
to the world. This papacy is about ministry,
not medieval ornamentation. I think the small
human moments speak the loudest here. He refused
the papal limousine and took the bus back with
the other cardinals. And he stood up to receive
their congratulations instead of sitting on the
papal throne. But the most famous anecdote, the
one that broke through the global news, was his
insistence on stopping by the guesthouse to collect
his things and, critically, to pay his bill before
officially moving into the Apostolic Palace.
It sounds like a charming story, but what did
that single act instantly communicate about his
view of the Vatican's traditional finances? It
was a clear, immediate statement against the
traditional expectation of privilege and entitlement
within the Vatican bureaucracy. So a rejection
of the idea that the Pope operates above mundane
rules. Exactly. It sent a shiver down the spine
of the Roman Curia. The message was clear. the
financial cleanup has begun. And speaking of
residences, he never actually moved into the
traditional home of the popes, the Apostolic
Palace. Correct. In a completely unprecedented
move for a modern pope, Francis chose to reside
in the Dome Sainte -Marthe guest house, just
a common suite where he could receive visitors.
Not the luxurious and often lonely Apostolic
Palace apartments. No, he was the first pope
since Pius X, over a century earlier, to live
outside those apartments. It signaled a permanent
shift away from what he viewed as the isolating
excesses of the papacy. This revolution in style
was quickly followed by him laying the theological
foundation for his entire papacy. Starting with
his motto, Miserando atque elegendo. Which translates
as, By having mercy and by choosing. It's drawn
from the story of St. Matthew the tax collector.
It immediately set the core tone. The central
theme of his papacy would be God's boundless
mercy over any rigid adherence to institutional
rules. And this emphasis on mercy and accessibility,
it became the programmatic text of his papacy,
Evangelii Gaudium, which was published only seven
months after his election in 2013. That document
was a comprehensive blueprint. It called for
a missionary and pastoral conversion. It advocated
for a church that fully includes the laity in
its mission. And critically, he coined that famous
phrase. That church shepherds must have the smell
of the sheep. Meaning they have to stay close
to the common people of God, deeply involved
in their lives and struggles. And this was essentially
his mandate to the clergy to move away from internal
focus and status, what he vehemently termed clericalism.
Oh, he saw clericalism as a disease. He defined
it as dwelling excessively on priestly status
and authority, and he believed it isolated priests
from the very people they were meant to serve.
He warned repeatedly that poorly trained or self
-serving priests could become little monsters.
So this focus on service, radical simplicity
and inclusion, it formed the core ideological
identity of his decade -long tenure. And it positioned
him constantly against the internal forces of
tradition and bureaucracy. Now, Francis didn't
just redefine the role of the pope. He fundamentally
shifted the theological priorities of the church
outward toward global social justice concerns.
We see this immediately with his focus on the
environment. Indicated by his name choice, Francis
of Assisi, the patron saint of ecology. And his
environmental focus wasn't just... It was codified
in serious, high -level theological documents.
Right. His 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si, Praise
Be to You, was a monumental work. It called for
swift and decisive action on climate change.
This document fundamentally established the concept
of integral ecology within Catholic teaching.
And what does integral ecology mean, exactly?
It's the idea that the environmental crisis and
the social crisis of poverty are intrinsically
linked. You can't solve one without addressing
the other. So this wasn't just a general call
for conservation. He was condemning the economic
and political systems driving the destruction.
Absolutely. Laudato si' condemned indifference
to the ecosystem, the worship of technology,
and greed for short -term profit. He argued that
the earth itself is among the most abandoned
and mistreated of the poor. And he followed this
up. in 2023 with another document, Laudat Deum.
Praise God. Yes, he released that ahead of the
COP28 conference, and it specifically and strongly
condemned climate change denial, warning that
the planet was near the breaking point. He also
elevated the environmental crisis to a moral
and legal issue of the highest order. He did.
In 2019, he stated unequivocally that ecocide
The serious destruction of the natural environment
was a sin and that it should be classified as
a fifth category of crimes against peace under
international law. A huge push for global accountability.
And he backed it up with gestures at the Vatican
itself. In June 2024, he ordered the Vatican
to construct an agrivoltaics facility on its
land holdings outside Rome. Combining solar energy
with agriculture. A practical, visible demonstration
of the principles of integral ecology. Beyond
the environment, he was relentless in his economic
criticism, consistently siding with the marginalized
and critiquing mainstream capitalist theories.
Especially those favored by political conservatives.
He was a staunch vocal critic of what he repeatedly
termed trickle -down economics, consumerism,
and unchecked overdevelopment. He used some very
strong language, didn't he? He did. In one address,
he stated that the current global economic model
kills because it focuses solely on profit rather
than the human person. And in 2024, we saw him
push for incredibly specific economic policies,
moving far beyond just general moral calls for
charity. This is where he became politically
explicit. He renewed calls for a universal basic
income, or UBI. And he explicitly supported higher
taxes on billionaires, warning that the world's
wealthy were obsessed with pure greed. And for
him, the true measure of a society wasn't its
GDP. Not at all. It was how it cares for its
most vulnerable. He said the true development
of people is measured in the face of suffering.
He also embraced popular movements as a necessary
antidote to what he called the culture of the
self. And he even went as far as praising Gustavo
Gutierrez, the founder of liberation theology,
which is a remarkable historical turn given the
ideological conflict that caused his estrangement
from the Jesuits decades prior. So how did he
reframe it? He emphasized the positive aspect
of grassroots solidarity and activism for the
poor. encouraging Christians and even Marxists
to cooperate on social issues. Finally, in the
realm of morality While maintaining traditional
Catholic teaching on fundamental issues like
abortion, he showed a distinct reluctance to
focus narrowly on what he viewed as secondary
moral debates. He famously criticized the obsession
of some Catholics with a selection of issues,
specifically citing abortion, gay marriage, and
the use of contraceptive methods. And he suggested
that this hyper -focus did not show the heart
of the message of Jesus Christ. Exactly. He argued
the church needed to be a field hospital. first.
You provide healing and mercy before dwelling
on complicated moral specifics. But perhaps his
most tangible and lasting moral reform relates
to the death penalty, a change that required
revising the church's fundamental doctrine. It
was huge. Francis committed the church to the
worldwide abolition of the death penalty. In
2018, he revised the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, the church's official doctrine, to state
that capital punishment is inadmissible in all
cases. Inadmissible in all cases. That's a massive
doctrinal shift, isn't it? It's massive. Previous
popes had accepted the death penalty as permissible
in extremely rare cases where it was the only
way to defend human lives against an unjust aggressor.
And Francis completely closed that door. He did.
He asserted that because modern society possesses
the technology and means to safely detain offenders,
capital punishment is always an attack on the
inviolability and dignity of the person, regardless
of the severity of the crime. Let's talk about
institutional reforms. Francis inherited a Vatican
that was widely seen as needing a serious overhaul,
particularly regarding its finances and internal
governance. And he was explicitly mandated by
the cardinals who elected him to clean up the
financial scandals. So let's start with the opaque
and notorious Vatican Bank, the Institute for
the Works of Religion, or IOR. The IOR was a
major liability. It was facing longstanding allegations
of corruption, insufficient money laundering
controls, and maintaining thousands of suspicious,
often anonymous, accounts. So he was forced to
act immediately to ensure compliance with international
financial standards. What did he do? He appointed
a commission to advise on reform, replacing four
of the five cardinal overseers in January 2014.
More importantly, he introduced sweeping internal
regulatory changes and auditing standards. led
to a lot of accounts being closed. Thousands.
By 2015, the IOR had closed thousands of accounts
belonging to entities and individuals who did
not meet the strict new transparency requirements.
The goal was full transparency, and he even showed
a willingness to close the bank entirely if the
reforms proved impossible. He also applied this
new fiscal restraint to the Curia itself, specifically
targeting the traditional culture of entitlement.
He abolished the large traditional bonuses paid
to Vatican employees upon the election of a new
pope, directing the millions of euros saved to
charity instead. I also read he abolished the
25 ,000 annual bonus that was paid to cardinals
serving on the board of supervisors for the Vatican
Bank. He did. It was all part of his rejection
of careerism and financial privilege within the
church hierarchy. Beyond finance. One of his
flagship initiatives was the profound change
to internal governance through the creation of
the synodal church. The synod on synodality,
which Francis convened in 2023, was perhaps the
culmination of his vision. It was aiming for
deep structural change. And the fundamental goal
was a radical decentralization of governance
away from Rome. Right. Instead of a purely top
-down structure, he aimed for a church that listens,
where decisions are made in dialogue with the
people and local bishops. part of that process
involved integrating the laity and critically
women into the decision -making structure his
new apostolic constitution episcopal's communio
formally allowed lay people to contribute input
directly and then the most controversial and
historically significant development was that
2023 synod where he granted voting rights to
35 women Those women experts and religious sisters
amounted to just over 10 % of all voters, but
it marked the first time women were ever allowed
to vote in a synod of bishops. Fundamentally
challenging the idea that only ordained clergy
can hold institutional power. Now, regarding
the role of women more broadly, this is a topic
where Francis's progressive institutional changes
clash sharply with his firm adherence to doctrine.
It's a key contradiction we need to dissect.
It is the essential tightrope that Francis walked
his entire papacy. He categorically rejected
the ordination of women as priests. He stated
that the doctrine is definitive and that holy
orders is reserved for men. But at the same time,
he systematically unlocked almost every other
institutional door for women. Right, which led
some to view it as progressive pragmatism and
others to see it as an ultimate failure on gender
equality. So what were some of the key institutional
appointments that reflected this balance? He
appointed women as full members of dicastries.
That's the term for the departments of the Roman
Curia, the Vatican's ministries. He appointed
women to posts previously held only by men, like
the Italian magistrate Katia Sumeria as the first
woman promoter of justice in the Vatican's Court
of Appeals, and Natalie Beckert, a French nun,
as co -undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops.
He also seemed to waver on the possibility of
female deacons, which is often seen as a possible
step toward greater inclusion in the ministry.
He did. He impaneled two separate commissions,
one in 2016 and another in 2020, to study the
history of female deacons in early Christianity.
But the first commission failed to reach a consensus
on whether the historical role was sacramental.
And he later appeared to reject the idea entirely.
He did. In 2024, he emphasized that women's place
in the church is much more important than the
ministerial way, which seemed to close the door,
at least for now, on that possibility. OK, now
we get to the core of the conservative backlash
he faced. The three major theological documents
that sparked intense, visible and often unprecedented
internal conflict. First, let's go back. Back
to Emerus Letitia in 2016. This apostolic exhortation
on love within the family focused on pastoral
care for those in irregular situations, particularly
divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. And
the controversy centered on a nuanced footnote.
A footnote suggesting that in certain specific
situations, after sufficient reflection and guidance,
these individuals might be able to receive communion.
He called for responsible personal and pastoral
discernment of particular cases. Why did this
specific nuance cause such an immense challenge
to his authority? Because traditionalists argue
that communion must be reserved only for those
in a state of grace. And being civilly remarried
while the first marriage is still considered
valid by the church constitutes adultery, which
is a state of sin. So Francis was essentially
prioritizing mercy and individual conscience
over rigid application of the rule. Exactly.
And this prompted four cardinals to issue the
dubia a formal request for clarification on doctrine.
It was an unprecedented public challenge, and
it led conservative critics to escalate their
criticism with accusations of promoting heretical
propositions. Then came the traditional Latin
mass controversy. which was a direct reversal
of his predecessor's policy. Right. In 2021,
Francis issued the decree Traditionis Custodes,
which imposed severe restrictions on the use
of the older tridentine mass, often called the
traditional Latin mass. And this mass represented
a specific pre -Vatican II vision of the church.
It did, and Benedict VI had broadly liberalized
its use. So Francis's decree was a direct rejection
of the liturgical path favored by conservatives
and his predecessor. A very swift targeted act
of ideological warfare. That's one way to put
it. Francis significantly increased Vatican oversight
over the ritual and restricted the right of newly
ordained priests to celebrate it, stating that
the Latin mass was being used to sow division
and reject the reforms of the Second Vatican
Council. Traditionalist prelates found the move
unnecessarily harsh, but he was resolute. But
the internal firestorm reached its absolute zenith
with fiducious supplicants in December 2023.
This was the big one. Fiducia supplicants allowed
Catholic priests to perform spontaneous blessings
for same -sex couples and other irregular relationships
provided the blessing was non -liturgical. So
it couldn't look or sound like a sacrament. Right.
He reiterated that marriage remains exclusively
between a man and a woman, but the document marked
a seismic shift in pastoral tone, emphasizing
that God welcomes all people. And the response
was immediately global and explosive. It sparked
intense controversy. Conservative prelates called
it sacrilegious and blasphemous. And crucially,
the source details that the fallout involves
an unprecedented political act. The entire assembly
of African bishops announced a collective rejection
of the declaration. An entire continent's bishops.
An entire continent's Episcopal conference. They
stated that implementing such blessings cannot
be carried out in Africa without exposing themselves
to scandals. This public collective rejection
was a monumental challenge to the pope's immediate
authority. Despite these intense internal conflicts,
Francis maintained an incredibly active global
diplomatic role, often favoring quiet negotiation
and bridge -building over confrontation. Even
in the most politically fraught situations, the
most controversial example of this diplomatic
approach was his rapprochement with the People's
Republic of China. Despite the Vatican still
formally recognizing Taiwan. Right. Francis took
a highly conciliatory line, believing uneasy
dialogue was better than silence. And what was
the core strategic rationale for the Vatican
engaging in this? The primary goal was protecting
the Chinese underground church and ensuring canonical
continuity. The 2018 Provisional Vatican -China
Agreement, which was renewed multiple times,
it gave the Vatican a role in consulting with
the Chinese government on the appointment of
bishops. And in return, the government recognized
the Pope as the supreme head of the church. Exactly.
The Vatican hoped this would stop the appointment
of state -controlled bishops without a papal
mandate. But critics, including Cardinal Joseph
Zen, warned the sold -out loyal Chinese Catholics
and accepted infringements on religious freedom.
And they had a point. Because China repeatedly
violated the terms, they unilaterally installed
bishops without Vatican approval. Yet Francis
consistently defended the strategy, arguing that
any mechanism for dialogue offered a path to
prevent a total schism. He even later recognized
an irregular appointment just to remedy the canonical
irregularity, prioritizing unity over condemnation.
On a different front, he played a key and very
successful mediating role in restoring full diplomatic
relations between the U .S. and Cuba. Tremendous
diplomatic victory in 2014. He played a key role
following a direct request from President Obama.
He was uniquely positioned because he held the
confidence of both administrations. And the success
was so profound that Cuban leader Raul Castro,
after meeting Francis, said he was considering
returning to the Catholic Church. An amazing
outcome. Turning to the Middle East, Francis
offered strong symbolic gestures in the Israeli
-Palestinian conflict long before the ultimate
flare -up in 2023. During his 2014 visit, he
made very conscious, symbolic gestures to both
sides. He was the first pope to visit the grave
of Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, symbolizing
respect for the Jewish homeland. He then prayed
at a section of the Israeli West Bank barrier,
symbolizing solidarity with Palestinians, and
he later signed the Vatican's first treaty recognizing
the state of Palestine in 2015. Following the
October 7 attacks and the subsequent Gaza war,
his condemnation was dual -sided and became increasingly
political. It did. He condemned the October 7
attacks, but was also intensely critical of Israel's
military operations in Gaza. He used powerful
language, calling their actions cruelty and even
terrorism after an IDF sniper killed two Palestinian
Christian women sheltering in a church. And in
November 2024, he went even further. He suggested
the international community should investigate
if Israel's campaign in Gaza constituted a genocide
of the Palestinian people. And we learned a surprising
detail about his personal pastoral commitment
to the region. right up until his death. An incredible
detail. He personally telephoned Gaza's only
Catholic church, the Holy Family Parish, every
single night from October 2023 until the day
he died on Easter Monday, April 21st, 2025. Every
single night. It just underlines his consistent
pastoral connection to the war -battered region.
His non -aligned stance was perhaps most severely
tested by the war in Ukraine, where his initial
response drew significant frustration from Ukrainians
and the Western world. That is an understatement.
In February 2022, immediately after the invasion,
he made the unprecedented step of visiting the
Russian embassy in Rome to personally express
his concerns. But he also said something that
was seen as echoing Russian narratives. He did.
He later suggested the conflict was somehow either
provoked or not prevented, citing an unnamed
world leader who claimed NATO was barking at
the gates. This was deeply frustrating to Ukrainians
who saw it as failing to clearly condemn the
aggressor. So what was the motivation for maintaining
this controversial non -aligned position? Analysts
concluded his hope was to position the Vatican
as an impartial, neutral broker of peace. He
argued that taking sides would eliminate any
chance of meaningful dialogue. So even though
he later recognized Ukraine had suffered aggression
and called them a noble people. He continued
to warn against a simplistic good versus evil
perception of the conflict. His focus remained
rigidly on dialogue, even saying dialogue must
continue with any power that is at war, even
if it is with the aggressor. And he dispatched
high ranking. envoys to the region, which was
a highly unusual diplomatic move. Very unusual.
He sent two high ranking cardinals, Krajewski
and Czerny, as direct envoys to Ukraine and the
surrounding refugee camps. It signaled his direct
engagement, even while maintaining that delicate
political distance. Finally, we turn to the constant
advocacy that defined his international persona.
The championing of migrants and refugees. This
was arguably the most consistent core component
of his global work. He consistently called the
protection of migrants a duty of civilization
and fiercely criticized neo -nationalists who
rejected refugees. His visit to the Moria refugee
camp on Lesbos in 2016 was a huge statement.
It was a visible statement against what he called
the globalization of indifference. And his final
powerful diplomatic act was a direct confrontation
with nativism in the United States. following
the 2025 mass deportations. It was. Following
the U .S. elections, the new administration defended
strict anti -immigrant policies using the technical
Catholic concept of ordo amoris, the right ordering
of one's love to justify nativism. Arguing you
must love your own nation first. Right. And Francis
issued an excoriating response to U .S. bishops,
citing the parable of the Good Samaritan. He
clarified that true love, the ordo amoris, builds
a fraternity open to all without exception. He
used a highly technical theological term to dismantle
the political justification for closing borders.
If there is one area where Francis marked a permanent
shift in the Catholic Church, it's the tone with
which it addresses the LGBTQ plus community,
even if the doctrine remains unchanged. And that
famous question set the stage for everything
that followed. Who am I to judge? Delivered on
an airplane returning from World Youth Day in
July 2013, it signaled a seismic, immediate change
from his predecessors. His papacy emphasized
the need to accept, welcome, and accompany LGBTQ
people, moving away from past rhetoric that focused
solely on condemnation. This shift in tone led
to high -profile recognition from outside the
church hierarchy almost immediately. Francis
was named the Advocate's Person of the Year in
2013, an American LGBTQ magazine. And he took
concrete steps, publicly denouncing the criminalization
of homosexuality globally as unjust and a sin.
So we have this constant delicate balance. doctrine
versus pastoral care. He supported civil unions,
but maintained the traditional definition of
marriage. Exactly. He reiterated that marriage
is exclusively between a man and a woman, based
on procreation and complementarity. But he supported
civil unions for same sex couples as necessary
legal protections. He separated the legal sphere
from the sacramental. And under his pontificate,
the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith confirmed
that transgender people could be baptized under
certain conditions. Showing a strong desire for
acceptance and integration of individuals. And
the ultimate, most controversial expression of
that pastoral shift was fiducia supplicans. Which
we discussed earlier, allowing for the blessing
of individuals in same -sex relationships. A
decree which specifically blessed the individuals
in irregular relationships, emphasizing mercy
for the person without approving the union itself.
It was the theological tightrope walk writ large.
However, this shift was not without major contradictions
and confusing messaging, particularly around
gender issues. Which drew criticism from both
liberals. liberals and conservatives. He faced
criticism for suggesting gay children should
seek psychiatric treatment, though he later rescinded
that statement. And he frequently criticized
what he termed gender ideology. He did. He described
gender affirming education and theory as ideological
colonization, stating that ideology nullifies
differences between men and women. But he made
an effort to clarify that his criticism of the
ideology was not a criticism of transgender people
themselves. He was very careful to draw that
distinction. He stated his criticism was directed
at the ideology he saw as undermining the natural
order, not a transgender people themselves who
must be accepted and integrated into society.
He privately met with many LGBTQ people and activists
throughout his papacy, demonstrating that dual
approach, maintaining the doctrinal lines while
practicing radical acceptance of the individual.
Let's turn to the final phase of his papacy,
which was defined by increasing physical frailty
and a final burst of institutional reckoning.
Francis entered his papacy already having survived
that life -threatening illness that cost him
part of a lung. His final years were marked by
recurrent chronic health issues. chronic lung
damage, severe knee problems, sciatica. Starting
in 2022, he was forced to frequently use a wheelchair,
a walker, or a cane for public appearances. And
he didn't hide his condition, describing it as
a new, slower phase of his papacy. And disability
advocates widely praised him for making his disability
visible, challenging the historical norm of a
pope who must appear physically robust. He also
endured multiple hospitalizations. A respiratory
infection and abdominal surgery in 2023, and
then a severe polymicrobial infection and bilateral
pneumonia in early 2025, which required mechanical
ventilation. And yet he continued working right
until his last public appearance on Easter Sunday,
April 20, 2025. His commitment to institutional
reckoning regarding the clergy sexual abuse scandal
was also a defining late -stage element of his
papacy. Absolutely. He apologized for sexual
abuse by clergy in the U .S., Ireland, and Canada,
and he issued the first Vatican apology for cultural
genocide committed in Canadian residential schools
in 2022. And crucially, he abolished pontifical
secrecy in abuse cases in 2019. A critical procedural
step toward transparency. It clarified that bishops
do not need Vatican authorization to turn over
materials to civil law enforcement. And he took
the unusual step of publicly thanking journalists
for their role in uncovering the scandals. He
did. He thanked them for helping us not to sweep
it under the carpet and for the voice you have
given to the abuse victims. However, the sources
also note that even late in his life, issues
of accountability continue to draw scrutiny.
They did. The handling of cases like Cardinal
Jean -Pierre Ricard or the artist Father Marco
Rupnik showed that the Vatican's commitment to
full justice was still a work in progress. Francis
died on Easter Monday, April 21st, 2020. 25 at
the age of 88. His cause of death was attributed
to a cerebral stroke. coma, and cardiac arrest.
And his final wishes regarding his burial were
themselves unconventional, fitting his lifelong
rejection of pomp. He didn't want to be buried
at St. Peter's Basilica. No, his spiritual testament
stipulated his desire to be buried at the Basilica
of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. This made him
the first pope to be interred there since Clement
IX in 1669. A final symbolic act eschewing the
primary monumental symbol of papal power. for
a basilica dedicated to Mary, the mother of God.
Ultimately, his legacy is one of radical change
achieved through immense political and theological
risk. He fundamentally changed the future direction
of the church. He irrevocably changed the College
of Cardinals by appointing over 80 % of the electors
for his successor. He significantly reduced the
European share from a majority to a plurality,
prioritizing men from the Global South and Asia
who shared his pastoral vision. He formalized
the Church's commitment to the worldwide abolition
of the death penalty. And while he maintained
the prohibition on female ordination, he made
massive strides in increasing women's presence
in governance and institutional functions. He
was a pope who simultaneously simplified the
appearance of the office, living in a guest house,
refusing traditional garb, while immensely complicit
in the complicating the internal theological
landscape. He leveraged optics to force substance.
That's a good way to put it. So we have charted
the life of Pope Francis, a figure defined by
radical simplicity, a deep pastoral connection
to the marginalized, and an unprecedented willingness
to engage in institutional warfare to change
the church's priorities. He was unafraid to steer
the church through intense theological disagreement,
prioritizing global diplomatic engagement and
environmental action. The narrative of Francis
is compelling because of his humility. The accountant's
son and former bouncer who insisted on paying
his own hotel bill as pope. He consistently criticized
economic systems built on pure greed, arguing
that the true measure of a society is its care
for the suffering. And that leads us to our final
thought for you to explore. Francis often criticized
systems of financial inequality and concentration
of wealth. His final personal act, noted in the
sources, was donating his entire personal wealth,
about $200 ,000, to support a pasta -making project
at a youth prison. So considering his dual experience
managing bankruptcy in Buenos Aires and reforming
the opaque Vatican Bank, what deeper systemic,
economic or structural changes beyond simply
reforming the Curia or supporting UBI might Francis
have pursued if he had enjoyed an unimpeded longer
papacy? Could he have attempted to fundamentally
alter the church's own vast global financial
holdings to align with his critiques of pure
greed? That is something for you to mull or explore
on your own. Thank you for joining us on The
Deep Dive.