No sooner was he dead than the Argentinian pope was praised by world leaders as an "advocate for humanity". In this interview with the Humanistic Press Service (hpd), the chairman of the Giordano Bruno Foundation (gbs), Michael Schmidt-Salomon, takes a different look at the pontificate of the man who was born on December 17, 1936, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires and died last Easter Monday as Pope Francis in Vatican City.

hpd: German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described Francis as a "shining beacon of hope" and a "credible advocate for humanity". For Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, he was "a great shepherd" and friend. Even Left Party politician Jan van Aken praised Francis for having criticized the "inhuman character of a social order" "that is not oriented towards the needs of the people, but towards the maximization of profit." How do you view the deceased pope and his legacy?

Schmidt-Salomon: Jorge Mario Bergoglio certainly had pleasant human traits that are rather rare in the upper echelons of the Vatican. Not only did he have an extremely modest demeanor, but he also had a sense of humor quite unusual for a church leader. Based on his experiences in Argentinian poor neighborhoods, he probably had genuine compassion for the outcasts of society. But this by no means made him a "leftist" or even a defender of human rights! For Francis did not want wealth, but poverty for all. His utopia was not the "realm of freedom," in which every person has the opportunity to shape their life as they see fit. He was much more intent on turning back the wheel of history so far that religion would once again take first place. You could place his pontificate under the motto "Make Christianity great again" – well knowing that religion booms especially in those regions where prosperity and education levels are particularly low. From the perspective of a believer, for whom earthly life appears as a mere transit station to the afterlife, this may be understandable, but everyone else should steer clear of such a backward-looking critique of capitalism.

In February 2013, shortly after Benedict XVI's resignation, you predicted in a conversation with hpd [3] that possibly "a non-European will be elected Pope" to stop the "massive defection of Catholics to the evangelical camp." Did Francis fulfill this mission? 

Yes, one could hardly have found a better candidate for this! His "streetworker mentality," which was expressed, among other things, in the fact that Francis did not present himself as an absolute ruler, as "Pontifex maximus," but as "equal among equals" who queued at the back of the line for food distribution, was interpreted in the European media to mean that this pope was exceptionally progressive and liberal. In fact, however, he was unusually reactionary and evangelical. Francis scored points in the evangelical camp not only by renouncing traditional Catholic pomp (such as the red velvet shoes), but by implementing the political agenda of evangelicals. Hardly any other pope has supported the worldwide campaigns against abortion as massively as he did, and hardly any has done so little against the massive attacks on gays, lesbians, and trans people from within his own ranks. When, for example, the Nigerian Bishops' Conference called for even harsher penalties for homosexuals, no substantial criticism was to be heard from Rome on the matter. All in all, Francis was by no means an "advocate for humanity," but rather a likeable, smiling face that concealed a deeply inhuman ideology. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That also became apparent in 2015, when Francis commented on the Islamist attack on the French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo"…

Indeed! Only a few days after the attack in Paris that shook the world, Francis told journalists: "If [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It's to be expected […]. One must not provoke the faith of others." Such a relativization of religious terror should have created a rift in the Catholic community. That these devastating sentences were mentioned in hardly any of the venerable obituaries of the last few days is, I find, a serious journalistic failure…

Nevertheless, the "Kirche von unten" [Church from Below] movement had hoped that Francis would enhance the role of women in the Church and speak out in favor of equal rights for homosexual people. Were these hopes built on sand from the very beginning?

Yes. I already said in 2013, before Francis took office, that such hopes are similarly unfounded as the Shiite belief that the "hidden 12th Imam" will soon climb out of a dry well and take over world domination. While the Catholic Church was never an agency for spreading liberal, enlightened values, under the pontificate of the Argentinian pope it has moved much further away from the European canon of values. This can be observed very well in the USA. Traditionally, Catholics there were suspected of being particularly "liberal" or even "socialist." When US Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented himself to the world public with a large Catholic ash cross, it became clear that these times were over. The Trump administration today relies not least on the political-religious alliance that has been forged between evangelicals and right-wing Catholics in recent years. In this respect, it was quite symptomatic of the pontificate of Francis that on Easter Sunday, a few hours before his death, he received US Vice President J.D. Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, as one of his last guests in the Vatican.

What will happen now? Who will be Francis's successor on the papal throne?

This question is not easy to answer. In 2013, after Ratzinger's resignation, I was fairly certain that a representative from Latin America would ascend the papal throne to stop the triumphant advance of evangelicals there. Now, however, various options are open to the cardinals: They could choose a representative from the regions where Catholicism is growing particularly strongly, i.e., from Asia and especially Africa, where in recent decades not only homosexuals but also supposed "witches" have been persecuted [4]. They could also crown a candidate from the USA as Pope to support Trump's fight against "anti-Christian bias." [5] It cannot be ruled out that after Francis they might once again decide on a European cardinal in order to counteract the decline of the once so powerful Catholic Church here. But even if this were to happen, it will not change the long-term trend. For the future of Christianity clearly lies outside Europe. We must therefore expect that in the coming years we will be increasingly confronted from there with conservative to arch-reactionary attitudes that were long considered overcome in our latitudes. We can only hope that secular Europe will be able to withstand this additional pressure.