Where is Pope Francis? Where is Morello's brain? - A Critique of the Article at the Catholic thing

Since the death of Pope Francis, some have taken the task to continue to berate him even after his death.  This became more apparent when, during his inauguration Mass, the new pope, Leo XIV, stated that he felt Pope Francis' presence and said he is in heaven.  He said the phrase a few times afterwards on different occasions. 

This prompted more criticism and anger against the new pope, with some accusing him of presumption and ignoring the norms and teachings of the Church, and on hagiography.  An article published by The Catholic Thing, written by Sebastian Morello, recently went deeper with the criticism, attempting to justify the criticism of the suggestion that Pope Francis is in heaven.    

The article (Where is Pope Francis? - The Catholic Thing) in question argues that Pope Leo XIV’s statements asserting that Pope Francis is in heaven are problematic, suggesting they bypass the formal canonization process, undermine the gravity of alleged sins, question the necessity of Purgatory, and discourage prayers for Francis’s soul. It further contends that modern canonizations, including that of Pope Paul VI, are politically motivated and lack the organic devotion traditionally associated with sainthood, particularly citing the case of Saint Philomena. This response will critically evaluate these claims, providing evidence that Pope Francis likely received the Last Rites and Apostolic Pardon, that not all saints in Church history required formal canonization (especially in the early Church), and that the santo subito phenomenon has historical precedent. The response will also address the article’s accusations against Pope Francis, emphasizing the theological and historical context of canonization and the Church’s teaching on salvation.

Refutation of the Claim That Declaring Francis in Heaven Is Problematic

The article asserts that Pope Leo XIV’s statements about Pope Francis being in heaven are “deeply problematic” because they bypass the formal canonization process and imply that Francis’s alleged sins (e.g., idolatry, suppression of the Tridentine Mass, heresy) are inconsequential. This claim misrepresents Catholic teaching on salvation and the role of canonization.

1. Likelihood of Last Rites and Apostolic Pardon
   Catholic tradition holds that the Last Rites, including the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick and the Apostolic Pardon, can remit all temporal punishment due to sin, potentially allowing a soul to enter heaven directly upon death. The Apostolic Pardon, as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1020), grants a plenary indulgence, removing all temporal punishment for sins confessed and absolved. Given Pope Francis’s position as the Supreme Pontiff, it is highly probable that he received these sacraments before his death on April 21, 2025. The Vatican’s protocols, as outlined in Universi Dominici Gregis (1996), ensure that a dying pope is attended by the Master of Papal Liturgical Ceremonies and other officials, who would facilitate the administration of the Last Rites. Posts on X from May 2025 affirm this likelihood, stating that if Francis received the Apostolic Pardon after a full confession, he could indeed be in heaven, reflecting God’s mercy rather than human merit. The article’s assertion that such a declaration undermines the gravity of sin ignores the transformative power of these sacraments, which are rooted in the Church’s theology of mercy.
2. Historical Precedent of Non-Canonized Saints and Santo Subito
   The article’s concern that declaring Francis in heaven bypasses canonization overlooks the historical reality that not all saints, especially in the early Church, underwent a formal canonization process. In the first millennium, sainthood was often recognized through popular acclamation, known as vox populi or santo subito (“saint immediately”), rather than a structured Vatican process. For example, martyrs like Saint Agnes and Saint Perpetua were venerated as saints by their communities without formal papal approval, as canonization procedures were not standardized until the 12th century under Pope Alexander III. The case of Saint Philomena, mentioned in the article, supports this point: her veneration arose organically in 1802 due to miracles and popular devotion, not through a formal process initially. The santo subito calls for Pope John Paul II in 2005 similarly reflected this tradition, leading Pope Francis to waive a second miracle for John XXIII’s canonization in 2014, recognizing his widespread devotion. Thus, Pope Leo XIV’s statements about Francis align with this historical precedent, expressing hope in his salvation rather than a formal canonization decree.
3. Theological Soundness of Expressing Hope in Salvation
   The article claims that asserting Francis is in heaven undermines the doctrine of Purgatory or suggests his sins were not grave. However, Catholic theology allows for expressions of hope in a person’s salvation without implying immediate canonization. The Catechism (CCC 1022) states that each soul faces particular judgment after death, and those who die in God’s grace may enter heaven, potentially after purification in Purgatory. Pope Leo’s statements, such as the X post on May 21, 2025, reflect a pastoral hope that Francis, having likely received the Last Rites, is with God, not a definitive magisterial pronouncement. The article’s assertion that this discourages prayers for Francis’s soul is speculative, as Catholics are encouraged to pray for all deceased, regardless of such statements (CCC 958). Moreover, the Church has never required canonization for a soul to be in heaven; canonization merely confirms a person’s sainthood for public veneration (CCC 828).

Addressing Allegations of Francis’s Sins

The article lists several accusations against Pope Francis, including idolatry (Pachamama), suppression of the Tridentine Mass, syncretism, heresy, and protection of predators. These claims require scrutiny, as they are often rooted in polarized narratives rather than objective evidence.

1. Pachamama Controversy
   The article accuses Francis of “idol-worship” related to the Pachamama statues during the 2019 Amazon Synod. However, the Vatican clarified that these statues represented an indigenous symbol of life and fertility, not a deity, and were used in a cultural context, not liturgical worship (Sacerdotus: Pope Francis says Amazon Figures are of 'Pachamama'). Pope Francis apologized for any confusion caused by their presence, emphasizing they were not idols. The accusation of idolatry lacks substantiation, as it misinterprets a gesture of inculturation as pagan worship, contrary to the Church’s tradition of integrating cultural symbols (e.g., Gaudium et Spes 58).
2. Suppression of the Tridentine Mass
   The article claims Francis suppressed an “ancient apostolic rite” through Traditionis Custodes (2021). This is misleading. Traditionis Custodes restricts the use of the 1962 Roman Missal (Tridentine Mass) to promote unity, affirming the Extraordinary Form as the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite”. The Tridentine Mass was not suppressed entirely; bishops may authorize its use under specific conditions. Pope Francis’s accompanying letter explained that the restrictions addressed divisions caused by some traditionalist groups rejecting Vatican II’s liturgical reforms. The Church’s authority to regulate liturgy, as noted in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947), allows such adaptations, and Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium (4) affirms the equal dignity of all approved rites, refuting claims of suppression.
3. Heresy and Syncretism
   The article’s accusation of heresy is vague and unsubstantiated, as it acknowledges Francis was never formally accused or obstinately held to heretical views. The Church requires a formal process to declare heresy (CIC 751), which did not occur. Claims of syncretism and religious relativism often stem from Francis’s emphasis on interreligious dialogue and inclusivity, as seen in his ecumenical efforts and statements like those in Patris Corde (2020). These align with Vatican II’s call for dialogue with other faiths (Nostra Aetate 2–3) and do not negate Catholic doctrine. The article’s assertion that Francis protected predators lacks evidence and ignores his reforms, such as Pascite Gregem Dei (2021), which strengthened penalties for abuse.

Canonization and Its Modern Context

The article argues that modern canonizations, including Paul VI’s, are politically motivated and lack organic devotion, citing Saint Philomena’s removal from the liturgical calendar as evidence. This requires correction.

1. Canonization’s Purpose and Infallibility
   Canonization is an act of the papal magisterium declaring a person’s heroic virtue and presence in heaven, traditionally considered infallible (Lumen Gentium 25). The article cites theologians questioning this infallibility due to modern changes, but this view is not mainstream. The Catechism (CCC 828) and historical practice affirm that canonization is a definitive act, though the process has evolved. John Paul II’s Divinus Perfectionis Magister (1983) streamlined procedures, reducing required miracles from two to one for canonization, but maintained rigorous scrutiny of virtues and miracles. The article’s claim that canonizations are now “instrumentalized” oversimplifies complex processes and ignores the Church’s ongoing commitment to verifying heroic virtue.
2. Saint Philomena and Paul VI
   The article misrepresents Saint Philomena’s case. Her removal from the universal liturgical calendar in 1961 under John XXIII (not Paul VI) was due to insufficient historical evidence of her life, not a rejection of her cultus. Her veneration continues in local contexts, consistent with the Church’s respect for popular devotion. Regarding Paul VI, the article’s claim that “almost no one likes him” is subjective and ignores his canonization in 2018, which followed verified miracles and widespread recognition of his role in implementing Vatican II. The article’s assertion that his canonization was to enforce Vatican II’s continuity dismisses the theological and pastoral merits of his pontificate, such as Humanae Vitae (1968), which upheld Church teaching on contraception.
3. Organic Devotion and Santo Subito
   The article contrasts modern canonizations with organic devotion, but many recent saints, like Carlo Acutis and Piergiorgio Frassati (set for canonization in 2025), reflect grassroots veneration. The santo subito phenomenon, as seen with John Paul II, mirrors early Church practices where communities acclaimed martyrs and confessors as saints. Pope Francis’s canonization of 942 saints, including laypeople like Zelie and Louis Martin, demonstrates a commitment to recognizing diverse models of holiness, not ideological agendas.

The article’s claims are rooted in a selective interpretation of Catholic theology and history, exaggerating Pope Francis’s alleged sins and misrepresenting the nature of canonization. Evidence suggests Francis likely received the Last Rites and Apostolic Pardon due to the fact of who he was and who lived with him, aligning with Catholic teaching on salvation through God’s mercy. The historical precedent of santo subito and non-formal canonizations in the early Church supports Pope Leo XIV’s hopeful statements about Francis’s soul, which do not equate to formal canonization. The accusations of idolatry, heresy, and liturgical suppression lack substantiation and ignore the Church’s authority to regulate liturgy and engage in dialogue (Sacrosanctum Concilium 4; Nostra Aetate 2–3). Modern canonizations, while streamlined, remain rigorous and responsive to genuine devotion, as seen in cases like Acutis and the Martins. Rather than undermining the faith, Pope Leo’s statements reflect pastoral hope, consistent with the Church’s mission to proclaim God’s mercy.

Morello really did not think through when he wrote this accusatory and slanderous article. Face it, these people just hate Pope Francis. They view things through their bias and interpret them within their echo chamber. The article is based on personal conjecture, falsehoods, the sin of detraction and sophism. We can ask where Pope Francis is. Most people believe he is in heaven based on his Christian witness, but we do not need to ask where Morello's brain is. It is clearly bent on attacking a dead person. Only a vile and disturbed individual would do this. What happened with "Never speak ill of the dead?" This article by Morello is classless, lacks Christian charity, sanity and humanity.