Former Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput critiques Pope Francis, presenting a narrow and concerning perspective in his recent writings.

Archbishop Emeritus Charles J. Chaput’s recent critique of the late Pope Francis, published in First Things, presents a contentious viewpoint regarding a papacy that resonated significantly with millions of Catholics and non-Catholics. Chaput argues that Pope Francis was “inadequate to the real issues facing the Church,” a claim grounded in a misunderstanding of what it means to be faithful to the Gospel. He appears to hold the belief that fidelity requires a rigid adherence to the forms seen in the administrations of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, rather than embracing their underlying spirit.

Contrary to Chaput’s assertions, Pope Francis did not oppose the Second Vatican Council or its predecessors. Instead, he sought to challenge a conservative approach that prioritizes ideological purity over pastoral care. This particular strand of conservatism, especially evident within segments of the American Catholic Church, often focuses more on enforcing doctrinal borders than on sharing the liberating message of the Gospel. Pope Francis’s efforts aimed to fulfill the council’s mission by promoting mercy, humility, and compassionate engagement with a world in need.

Central to Francis’s vision was the call for the Church to engage with marginalized communities, an act he regarded as a moral imperative rather than a strategy. While Chaput sees “ambiguity” in the Pope’s messaging, many in the broader Church interpret it as an invitation to embody justice, compassion, and inclusion. In light of this, it is Archbishop Chaput who seems misaligned with the contemporary moment within the Church.

Chaput also previously advocated for the cancellation of the Synod of Bishops focused on young people, following the clergy sexual abuse crisis of 2018. His perspective mischaracterized the roots of that scandal, which were deeply embedded in secrecy and a culture of clericalism rather than the transparency that Francis championed. The Pope recognized that healing required the Church to be open and receptive to those it had failed.

The rise of militant traditionalism, particularly among Francis’s critics, further complicates the narrative. This movement often rejects the Church’s missionary identity in favor of nostalgic liturgical practices, mirroring a resistance to engage with present challenges.

The recent discussions around a return to the Latin Mass underscore this tension. This practice, conducted in a language foreign to most congregants, embodies a self-referential Church that distances itself from the faithful and the world it serves.

Pope Francis, however, understood that the vitality of the Church lies not in clinging to archaic traditions, but in renewing its core mission of service and compassion. Although his tenure was not without its shortcomings, his brave positioning on critical issues, such as poverty, refugee crises, and the Church’s own failings, exemplifies a commitment to the essence of the Gospel.

To dismiss his contributions as inadequate overlooks the profound courage it took to prioritize the marginalized. Such a view reflects not a lack of candor but a disconnect from the true call of discipleship within the Church. It is essential to recognize that Pope Francis’s legacy is one of walking with the faithful, embodying the message of the Gospel in today’s world.

Media News Source