The legacy of Francis?

Is it too early to evaluate the papacy of Francis, in terms of a legacy? I think not, and I think his legacy is one of sheer, almost unmitigated, disaster.

I should be clear: I'm not presuming to "judge" the man, either in terms of worthiness for salvation or in terms of how fitting it is to pray for his soul. The first is between him and God, and the second should go without saying.

But now that the conclave has happened and we have a new pope, the thread of Francis' papacy has been cut and the cloth in that particular loom is complete. We can (and should) give it an honest examination.

And I can't think of a single good that Francis uniquely brought to the Church as pope.

Read more: The legacy of Francis?

Papal succession and Leo XIV's first sermon

In the days leading up to the conclave, various prognosticators were given to discussing the new pope in terms of his succession of recent popes: Will he be one who carries forward Francis' agenda? One who reflects Benedict XVI's approach to the Church?

During this time, I got to reflecting that the papacy is a rather different kind of institution than that. A pope who properly understands his office should see himself not as a successor of his immediate predecessor, nor of any other recent pope, in terms of leadership, governance, and unity in the Church. Rather, every pope should see himself as immediately the successor of Saint Peter.

To be sure, every pope steps into this role in an historical context that includes all the works, teachings, appointments, etc. of all the popes before him. But his singular duty, in any part of history, is to be the Rock on whom Jesus built His Church and to wield the Keys of the Kingdom.

Given this, I find it at least in some small measure auspicious that much of Leo XIV's first sermon as pope was spent in explicit or implicit reference to Saint Peter.