The Funeral of Pope Francis
The Funeral of Pope Francis
We do not intend here to examine the figure and actions of Pope Francis, about whom much has already been written and whom historians will be able to assess in hindsight, as happens with every historical event. We simply wish to make a few observations about his funeral.
For days, all mass media set aside the tragic ongoing wars and the economic problems triggered by the announced Trumpian tariffs, to focus solely on the massive farewell demonstrations for the late Pope by enormous crowds of people from all social backgrounds—from ordinary folk to delegations from almost every government in the world.
It is true that at funerals, people always speak well of the deceased (de mortuis nihil nisi bene), and it happens that everyone aligns with the praise. I would note that even many of the Pope’s internal critics within Catholicism remained silent.
Some considered the importance given to the event excessive, in light of the ongoing tragedies in the world, and said it was a case of imposed conformity. We tend to believe that if the media say something we don't like, then they must not be free. But it doesn’t seem to me that there was any top-down order to dedicate so much space to the Pope’s funeral. The fact that some feel the coverage was excessive does not mean it happened because of a lack of freedom.
The fundamental reason why the media give space to certain events is that they interest people: the competition among the free press is based on audience ratings.
If all politicians show respect for the Pope and attend his funeral, it means he has a following, a prestige that politicians want to align themselves with.
In reality, this is not something unique to Pope Francis. Similar demonstrations were seen for his predecessors as well: it appears that the largest turnout (some say two million pilgrims) was for Pope John Paul II.
But how can we explain such prestige and respect in a world where the number of believers is steadily declining?
It must be acknowledged by now that believers in the West (and in the Far East) are a shrinking minority—though it should also be noted that today, all those who declare themselves believers truly are, whereas in the past, when everyone claimed to be a believer, many were not.
The situation is different in the Islamic world and also in India (which is generally ignored), where mass atheism seems to be unknown.
To me, it doesn’t even seem that there is a Christian revival: in churches, the elderly far outnumber the young.
We are merely observing the phenomenon here, without examining the complex and multiple causes that generate it.
It should be noted that one can share Catholic thought in ethical
and civil matters even without being a believer.
Matters of worship, on the other hand, concern only believers—for example, when
we talk about the Eucharist. But the fact that the Church upholds a certain
ethical stance does not mean that such a stance cannot also be shared by
atheists or people of other religions. The Church is against war, against
racism, for equality; it cares for the poor, the suffering, the marginalized—as
is often said. But this does not mean that an atheist cannot share in these
concerns.
This, then, suggests a reevaluation of Catholic culture. I believe this is due to the fading of the anti-Catholic movements of past centuries.
I would say that, in our time, what is new is that the movements which, over the past two centuries, aimed to eliminate Christianity have all disappeared.
Already in the 1700s, the Enlightenment, though generally
maintaining a deist religious belief, was opposed to theism and particularly to
the Church.
In the Romantic period, there was a certain return to religiosity, but generally
in contrast to the Church—and the conflict intensified for political reasons.
This was followed by Positivism, which held that only science could provide true
knowledge, and since religion is different from science, it was therefore seen
as ignorance and superstition, destined to disappear rapidly.
The last and most aggressive of these movements was Communism, which, viewing
religion as the “opium of the people,” fought it in every way, leading to
terrible persecutions during the Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot eras.
All these movements have now been overtaken by history. Only a few isolated pockets remain, but Christianity has endured and remains vital—even if a minority.
This, in my opinion, explains—or is at least one of the main reasons for—the groundswell of participation in Pope Francis’s funeral: even if no one truly listened to his appeals for peace, everyone appreciated him. No one openly challenged him (perhaps only Netanyahu).
When the funeral of Pope Pius IX was held, a crowd of people even wanted to throw his body into the Tiber—something inconceivable today.