Editorial note: This tribute was written by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, former Secretary General of the World Evangelical Alliance, who has spent considerable time with Pope Francis in both official and personal settings—something that he was praised for by some evangelicals while being criticized by others. The reflections and assessments presented here are his own. They have been translated from the German original and are reproduced in full below.
I have worked with Pope Francis in a variety of official roles, both for the World Evangelical Alliance and the International Society for Human Rights. I accompanied him on three state visits. I also visited him privately at Santa Marta on numerous occasions, often around his birthday. In recent years, I was also frequently present during interreligious dialogue with Islamic states. The most unusual aspect was certainly that, during our private meetings at Santa Marta, we gradually began using the informal “du” in German, conversing and praying together in that language. The pope recently expressed, in his inimitable humorous way, that the end was near, barely audibly joking: “No coffee break with the pope today.” He had commented on the German edition of my book of the same name; the English version was only ever published online.
Since my book Coffee Breaks with the Pope was published in 2016, not only has a decade passed, but Pope Francis’ pontificate has also taken a somewhat different course. The focus shifted from interdenominational dialogue to dialogue with (state) Islam, and from evangelization to a broader appeal for respectful coexistence among all people.
His Life Before the Papacy
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, SJ, was born on Dec. 17, 1936, in Buenos Aires as the eldest of five children, four years after his father immigrated from Italy. He trained as a chemical technician, joined the Jesuits in 1958, and was ordained a priest in 1969. From 1980 to 1986, Bergoglio served as rector of the Faculty of Theology at San Miguel.
In 1986, he went to the Jesuit-run Sankt Georgen Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt am Main to pursue a doctorate. His dissertation on Romano Guardini’s philosophical magnum opus The Contrast remained unfinished, reportedly because he was ordered—likely as a disciplinary measure—to return to Argentina. The pope mourned the loss of that academic work until the end. From August to October 1986, he lived in Rothenburg ob der Tauber while attending a German course at the Goethe-Institut. Since then, in addition to Spanish and Italian, the pope has also spoken some German—meaning he maintained the language for decades.
At that point, Bergoglio had somehow become persona non grata among the Jesuits and, in turn, spoke poorly of them. For reasons still largely unexplored, he had been removed from his position as head of the major Jesuit university near Buenos Aires and was eventually sent into Jesuit exile in Córdoba from 1990 to 1992, including a ban on celebrating public Masses. Had the archbishop of Buenos Aires not unexpectedly consecrated him auxiliary bishop in 1992, the Jesuits likely would have left him to languish there for the rest of his life.
In 1997, he was appointed coadjutor archbishop of Buenos Aires, meaning he was the designated successor upon resignation or death of the incumbent. When Archbishop and Cardinal Antonio Quarracino died suddenly just nine months later, Bergoglio became archbishop in 1998. He was named cardinal in 2001.
At the 2005 conclave that elected Pope Benedict, he already received the second-highest number of votes but withdrew in the subsequent round, allowing Ratzinger to secure a two-thirds majority.
Following Pope Benedict’s resignation, he was elected pope relatively quickly and smoothly on March 13, 2013. He chose the name Francis in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi (1181–1226)—unusual, as newly elected popes had for centuries selected the names of their predecessors or a combination thereof.
In my view, it is an exaggeration to refer to him solely as the first fully Latin American and non-European pope, even though his Latin American temperament is certainly evident in his public appearances, writings, and personal interactions. He speaks Italian as fluently as Spanish, and I believe he would hardly have been elected had he not been of Italian descent. His father’s family fled fascism in Italy in 1929 and immigrated to Argentina. His mother also came from an Italian family. Even as a Jesuit, he initially lived in a structure heavily influenced by Italian leadership, tightly controlled from Rome, which eventually marginalized him.
The only influence outside of Latin America and Italy came through literature and his time in Germany pursuing a dissertation—the homeland of his predecessor—thus making that influence also European.
His Encyclicals and Books
Pope Francis has written three encyclicals:
1. Lumen fidei – The Light of Faith (2013), which is based on a draft by Pope Benedict and is the first encyclical to address faith in its entirety.
2. Laudato si’ – Praise Be to You (2015), the so-called environmental encyclical.
3. Fratelli tutti – On Fraternity and Social Friendship (2020).
There is a clear development here from what might almost be called Protestant-style biblical studies toward encyclicals addressed to all people of good will and thus increasingly less biblically-theologically argued. Fratelli tutti (2020), for instance, even states that most of its content was learned from the rector of the most important Islamic university, Al-Azhar in Cairo, Grand Sheikh Ahmad Mohamed al-Tayyib.
A similar development can be seen in the apostolic exhortations, which are somewhat lower in rank, of which there are quite a few, and which partly deal with organizational matters of the Vatican, regulate removal from office due to sexual abuse (2016, 2023), or address topics such as the significance of the nativity scene (2019) or the veneration of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux (2023). Of particular interest to Protestants and evangelicals are the early apostolic exhortations Evangelii gaudium – The Joy of the Gospel (2013) on evangelization and Aperuit illis introducing the Sunday of the Word of God (2019). As with the encyclicals, the more biblical and intra-theological writings date to the first half of his papacy.
In addition, there are an unusually large number of interview and conversation volumes, which are very atypical for a pope, with the first ones already appearing before he became pope. In them, he made statements—some of which became famous—that lay outside official Catholic doctrine and which Vatican authorities then had to painstakingly contextualize and explain. The same applies to his infamous responses during conversations and interviews with journalists aboard planes.
Even his 2024 autobiography (Life – My Story in History), as well as its predecessor from 2010 (My Life, My Path, German edition 2013), are a mix of interviews and explanations by the interviewers.
The Less Dogmatic Approach Had Advantages and Disadvantages
By appearing less dogmatic theologically, the pope has in some ways initiated developments welcomed by evangelicals, and in others, sparked developments that deeply concerned them.
This is inherent to his approach, as the occasionally loose handling applied equally to Christian truths and values considered “sacred” by Catholics (which Protestants welcomed changing), and those held “sacred” by conservative Protestants and evangelicals (which then shocked them). In addition, there is the already mentioned development that the pope initially reached out strongly to Protestants in the first half of his papacy, but then replaced this in the second half with a relationship to (state) Islam—or as Michael Meier put it: “Thaw with Islam, alienation from Protestants” (157).
The pope made many theological and profound changes without altering the written and dogmatic corpus of the Catholic Church itself. The Catholic Church never officially changes the ancient core of its tradition, but it often replaces outdated perspectives with new ones, such as when the Second Vatican Council elevated religious freedom to church doctrine—something the Catholic Church had fiercely opposed for two centuries.
If his successor adopts these changes in practice, they will become part of the Church over time. If the successor does not support them, however, he can abandon them without issue.
A typical example is the shifting or relegation of most of the pope’s titles—once prominently displayed on the cover page of the Annuario Pontificio under Pope Benedict—to the back in fine print. This treatment of the titles in the yearbook reflects the daily practice of Pope Francis, who refers to himself only as “Bishop of Rome” and never actually uses the other titles, so they appear only in official documents if at all. The claim of the papacy has not disappeared, but the pope is, in a sense, going back 1,000 years in history.
However, it is also typical of Francis how he handles this: on the one hand, making it appear as if the titles are mere historical remnants; on the other hand, presenting it to his conservative critics as if it were just a new visual presentation. Francis creates facts on the ground while the Catholic Church never officially revokes what it once declared to be truth—even if it decides the opposite—and that did not change under Francis.
For example, Francis questions whether he is truly the Vicarius Iesu Christi, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, when he speaks of the entire Church and anyone who proclaims the Gospel as representing Jesus Christ. The dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council applies this title to both the pope, in relation to the universal Church (LG 18.2), and to the individual bishop, in relation to the local Church entrusted to him (LG 27.1). The 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici, by contrast, uses the title exclusively for the pope—typical of John Paul II, but not dogmatically substantiated. Canon law can be changed by the pope at any time, but Francis chooses the more noticeable path through the yearbook.
As with many other questions, Protestants must decide: do they view the Catholic Church through the lens of its never-revoked historical doctrinal decisions, especially from the 16th and the 19th/20th centuries, or do they see it through the lens of the current pope? Both perspectives are legitimate, both contradict each other, because the Catholic Church itself is caught in a contradiction here. Millions of Catholics resolve the issue by ignoring history and seeing only the “modern” pope; millions of others resolve it by affirming that the historical documents apply and therefore believe Pope Francis is essentially betraying the papacy.
At his inauguration in St. Peter’s Square, the pope spoke differently than the official text issued at the time, which, in line with the Second Vatican Council, referred to Protestants only as “ecclesial communities.” He greeted the present Protestant church leaders together with the others as leaders of the “other churches”—a phrase he has repeated multiple times since, also evident in his equal treatment of, for example, Orthodox and evangelical leaders. However, he made no changes to the dogmatic corpus.
The Example of “Justification by Faith Alone”
The pope was practically a “fan” of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification from 1998 between the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
The joint declaration on justification was considered a tremendous step forward worldwide. However, the then-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, declared that the declaration could never nullify any previous council decision—such as those from the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, and this seems to me to be the decisive point, he did not question the correctness of the definition of justification in the declaration.
Francis simply bypasses the question of what all this means for the Council of Trent and builds instead on the fact that there is a shared description of what is regarded as the biblical doctrine of justification.
“In every form of evangelization, the primacy always belongs to God, who has called us to cooperate with him and who leads us on by the power of his Spirit.” (Evangelii gaudium, 12)
“By her evangelizing activity, the Church cooperates as an instrument of divine grace which acts unceasingly and surpasses every human planning. Benedict XVI expressed this clearly at the beginning of the deliberations of the Synod: ‘It is important always to know that the first word, the true initiative, the true action comes from God, and only by inserting ourselves into this divine initiative, only by begging for this divine initiative, shall we too be able to become—through him and with him—evangelizers.’” (Evangelii gaudium, 112)
— and the direct continuation:
“The principle of the primacy of grace must be a beacon which constantly illuminates our reflections on evangelization.” (Evangelii gaudium, 112)
Consider: “Primacy” in Catholic language typically refers to the primacy of the pope!
In his address to a Pentecostal congregation in Caserta on July 28, 2014, Pope Francis said:
“But the most beautiful, the greatest mystery is: When we find Jesus, we realize that he has already been looking for us, that he found us first, because he arrives before we do!”
His handling of indulgences also belongs in this context. On the one hand, he placed indulgences at the center of the Holy Jubilee Years he proclaimed—one of which is still ongoing. Yet already in the first Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy, indulgences are mentioned only in passing—specifically, only in paragraph 22 of 24. This is all the more astonishing given that the Jubilee Year was originally invented over 600 years ago as a year of indulgence. After many paragraphs devoted to mercy, it almost apologetically states:
“A Jubilee also entails reference to the indulgence. This assumes particular importance in the Holy Year of Mercy.”
But what is then described as indulgence has only a remote connection to classical Catholic indulgence theology (“nevertheless, negative traces remain”). At least, the Father grants mercy and forgiveness “through the Church.” Moreover, Francis overall is not far from simply granting indulgence to all believers. For it is an age-old contentious question why the pope, if he has the power to grant indulgences to all, does not simply do so.
In the brochure of the German Bishops’ Conference introducing The Holy Year, indulgence is simply not mentioned at all.
What I Consider to Be the Positive Aspects of His Work
It may seem presumptuous to list the positive and negative effects of the pope. Nevertheless, this is a more detailed appreciation than most obituaries, which highlight only a few selected elements. Moreover, it reveals the pope’s immense breadth of influence.
- He fought corruption in the Vatican and cooperation with the Mafia vigorously, at times even risking his life.
- He continued the process of depoliticizing the Vatican and its equivalent under international law, the Holy See, a process begun by his predecessor—for example, by having the Vatican no longer vote at the UN, or by transferring the monopoly on the use of force throughout the Vatican to the Italian police, meaning the Swiss Guard now operates without firearms. This is true even though he was simultaneously highly active in day-to-day politics and presented himself as a kind of global political conscience.
- He relaxed tensions in the relationship with non-Christian religions, especially Judaism (as a religion, less so with Israel as a state) and Islam (see my criticism below). The price for this human and political relaxation, however, was theological ambiguity—such as referring to religions as different paths to God, much like there are different languages—even though Francis continued to emphasize the necessity of evangelization and, only recently, placed the Dicastery for Evangelization above the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the hierarchy of papal institutions.
- He eased tensions between the global Catholic Church and evangelicals and Pentecostals, even though he increasingly lost interest in the topic as he turned toward interreligious dialogue. This easing of tensions led, in real terms, to reduced pressure on Protestant minorities in many majority-Catholic countries, and today, the Catholic Church often joins with evangelicals in standing against governments, instead of working with governments against them.
- He frequently highlighted the catastrophe of Christian persecution, even though he never institutionalized the topic anywhere in the Vatican or in the Catholic Church. He repeatedly emphasized the need for cooperation between churches, since all martyrs in heaven together form the cloud of witnesses. The term “ecumenism of martyrs” became a memorable slogan.
- The Vatican was centuries ago the inventor of ambassadorial diplomacy, which is why in many countries the nuncio, the ambassador of the Holy See, still holds the honorary chair of all diplomats. This still highly discreet diplomacy is perhaps the Catholic Church’s strongest weapon and achieves much good. Consider, for instance, that the Vatican enabled the resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States under President Obama and Cuba under President Raúl Castro. In the first half of the pontificate, Vatican diplomacy also increasingly advocated for non-Catholic Christians—a reality I can personally attest to—but that effort tapered off in the second half.
What I Consider to Be the More Problematic Aspects of His Work
- While Pope Benedict positioned himself clearly at the Republican end of the political spectrum in the United States—for example, by maintaining a personal relationship with President George W. Bush and even privately visiting him in the U.S. for his birthday—Pope Francis positioned himself at the other end and was, during his visit to the United States, clearly and at times brusquely aligned with the Democrats and against the Republicans. He even expressed support for presidential candidate and later President Biden, although the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops thought quite differently and wanted to excommunicate Biden. It was therefore surprising that the last political audience of his life was granted to U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance.
- It is no wonder that in the realm of politics and economics, he was perceived as a left-leaning pope. Unlike his two predecessors, he never really criticized communism or socialism, but instead attacked capitalism (“this economy kills”), economic liberalism, and consumerism. His exclusive support for all refugees and asylum seekers and their right to immigrate anywhere, or for total action against climate change—funded by industrialized countries—was often so focused on current political issues that the specifically Christian or Catholic aspect was hardly recognizable. VaticanNews publishes a dozen statements daily on almost every major political event in the world, which one could see as valuable engagement or as the total devaluation of one of the world’s most media-effective offices, especially since nearly all comments were predictable and predominantly “politically correct”—perhaps with the exception of the topic of abortion and, less clearly, that of sexuality.
Traditionally, popes were considered politically conservative and “right-leaning.” In his environmental encyclical and many other texts, speeches, and appearances, Francis demanded and promoted a political agenda widely understood as “leftist,” to the point that a direct theological basis became difficult to recognize. In his encyclical Fratelli tutti, he then argues largely without theology and repeatedly cites the head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Al-Tayyib, as his key witness, even though the latter never publicly commented on the issues addressed. It is the least theological encyclical ever written by a pope. Of course, it is fundamentally to be welcomed that the pope advocates for peace and defends human dignity against insults and worse on the Internet. But much of it is simply “politically correct” and barely distinguishable from good op-eds in a daily newspaper.
- In this context, his deal with China must also be mentioned. The agreement between the Holy See and China remains secret but effectively allows China to decide who becomes bishop, with the Vatican automatically approving after a brief waiting period, even while Catholic bishops sit in prison and the part of the Catholic Church that refuses to comply is heavily oppressed—without intervention from the Vatican. This is all the more unusual given that the Vatican has always—especially since about 1800—fought for the pope’s appointment of bishops to take precedence over all decisions by states, and even over local electoral traditions within the Catholic Church.
- The dialogue with Islam increasingly overshadowed both intra-Christian dialogue and dialogue with other religions. This dialogue takes place exclusively with representatives of state Islam. There is no dialogue with imams from countries like Germany, where Islam is not state-organized, nor with Islamic movements condemned by Islamic states, such as the Ahmadiyya. This clearly shows that the pope does not primarily follow the path of religious freedom or advocate for all religious minorities. The Al-Tayyib cited by the pope in Fratelli tutti as a key witness—whom the pope met often (I was nearby on several occasions)—is primarily a state cleric.
- The pope’s attempt to maintain his role as a possible mediator between Russia and Ukraine came at the price of him neither condemning the Russian Orthodox Patriarch’s unspeakable speech about a holy war nor accusing Russia of waging a war of aggression. For example, when one compares the harsh criticism of Israel with the criticism of Russia, one is surprised by the imbalance.
- In the case of Israel, the pope was not quite as one-sidedly pro-Palestinian as the Vatican has been historically, but he could not bring himself to condemn the murders of Oct. 7, 2023, as an act of terrorism. The pope tries, in light of his criticism of Israel, to assure the Jewish people of his appreciation—something some Jews greatly appreciated, while others viewed it as whitewashing.
The Pope Promised Much on Many Issues, and Delivered Little on Some
This is not meant as a cheap criticism—even a pope cannot achieve everything he sets out to do in twelve years, especially not when he puts forward such a broad reform agenda that touches practically everything related to the Vatican and the Catholic Church.
- The best example is the Amazon Synod, for which the pope himself raised far-reaching expectations, particularly the lifting of celibacy for the region. Although he received the required two-thirds majority for all such proposals at the synod, the final document written by the pope mentions none of the demands—let alone implementing any significant change. (It should be noted that in the Eastern Catholic parts of the Church, such as in the Middle East or Ukraine, married priests are permitted.)
- On the issue of the so-called female diaconate, which the Catholic Church had known for centuries and which the Orthodox churches have revived based on tradition, the pope kept announcing new commissions. None of them has yet even described a path toward its implementation. Observers initially thought the pope would introduce the female diaconate rather quickly, but in the end, there was no sign of any movement. Michael Meier speaks of a “never-ending loop.”
- In the case of homosexuality, all those who hoped for far-reaching changes were disappointed—none materialized. At the same time, the pope made so many side comments or issued ambiguous decisions on the topic (such as saying that same-sex couples may be blessed, but only for a few seconds and not as a couple) that even those who welcomed the lack of change were nevertheless annoyed.
- The record regarding the issue of sexual abuse by clergy, and the handling of both perpetrators and church leaders who covered for them or failed to act justly for the victims, is mixed. On the one hand, Francis worked tirelessly on the issue and achieved a great deal. For the first time, he showed no regard for the rank of the perpetrators or of those who were inactive against them. Even the highest-ranking cardinals had to resign—starting in 2018—or were handed over to authorities. Founders and leaders of spiritual movements, living and even deceased, were exposed, and their leadership structures were completely reorganized.
On the other hand, the final step was often missing—for example, the obligation to involve the state even in countries where this is not required by law, or to meet the demands of victims’ organizations to include professional laypeople in the relevant bodies, in order to—so Francis often stated—“put an end to clericalism.” Moreover, there is a sense that the question of the systematic causes behind the massive scale of abuse was never addressed, such as when 11 current and retired bishops in France, including two cardinals, were rightly indicted. Closely linked to this is the fact that the structure of the Catholic Church prevents the pope himself from being indicted. Still, he has at times shielded clergy when he could not imagine that they were perpetrators. In almost all cases, the pope issued a clear public apology; but most recently, he forgave and reinstated the Slovenian priest and gifted artist of church windows worldwide—Marko Ivan Rupnik, excluded from the Jesuit order and laicized by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—a few weeks after these actions were taken. Rupnik had been a favored artist of the papacy.
- The pope has, in practice, increased centralization. “The pope is one of the most authoritarian we’ve had in a long time,” said Robert Spaemann in Herder Korrespondenz. Now, the far-reaching reforms he implemented or announced, as well as the fight against corruption, could only be carried out with a strong central hand. But in effect, the individual pope now has far more effective and juridical power in the Vatican than any of his predecessors. A good example is the increasing number of women in leadership positions in the Vatican, which had previously been reserved for ordained individuals in top-level decisions. To circumvent this, the pope simply decided that no Vatican institution could act independently, and that everything must be approved by him. This has made it easy to appoint women to most leadership roles, but the price is an internal Vatican concentration of power not seen under his two predecessors.
