The singularity and global role of Francis.The distinction from the tradition of Europe.
Francis was a singular Pope. It was not just that he came from a world different from Europe, typical birthplace of the popes who had preceded him. He had spent his youth and adulthood as a Jesuit in a separate world. A country like Argentina where masses of poor citizens lived alongside a dominant class.
As bishop and then cardinal, he always had in mind this profound social separation and the role of the Church as closeness to the most disadvantaged classes. It was essentially a strong distinction with respect to the traditional church and its bishops in various countries of the world.
When he was appointed Pope he was 73 years old and the novelty was that he belonged to a family that came from far away. His father was Italian and his mother was also of Italian origins. But he had lived in a world that was in many ways characterized by deep internal divisions. He had had a distant position with respect to the military dictatorship.
Once appointed cardinal, he had maintained his moral attitude for the poorest and most disadvantaged part of the population. He would have remained a high prelate of Argentina if he had not been elected pontiff in 2013. An lelection that was unexpected, but which sanctioned the distance from the European tradition in the appointment of popes.
The expectations he had raised were not disappointed. He spent a large part of his pontificate visiting the most remote countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. The distinction from his predecessors, of Polish or German origin, became evident. But, at the same time, he gave rise to considerable disapproval at the top of the Church. The dissent often became explicit. This peculiarity distinguishedavr him from the tradition of european popes..
This allowed him to address people regardless of their faith. Indeed, he considered the moral aspect more important than the doctrine that was at its origin. This does not mean that the path was free of obstacles. The war of recent years, centered on the dispute between Ukraine, supported by European countries with the United States, and Russia posed problems that were difficult to solve. He would have liked to identify a ground for pacification, but it was not easy to do. Probably, if he hlived longer, he could have seen the conclusion, still largely controversial, of the war in the eastern Europe.
The United States under the new presidency of Trump does not tend to maintain the traditional american position towards Russia, considered a country susceptible to changing its position towards the US and, in general, western countries. The disease was continually worsening, but it had not prevented Francis from making and planning trips, albeit in a condition of increasing difficulty
At the end of his life, he leaves a legacy that corresponds to the novelties of his pontificate under which most of the cardinals were appointed. The Church of the future could have different aspects. But his pontificate has contributed greatly to changing its direction.
In the political uncertainty that is obscuring the present in international relations, deserves to be remembered for the evident, albeit complex, design to contribute to changing the relationships between the different countries of the contemporary world. This does not mean that he was always right. But he was profoundly changing the traditional positions of the Catholic Church. It is important to see who, and from which country, will be his successor.