The Legacy and Future of Pope Francis
Interview with Ambassador Kagefumi Ueno
Former Ambassador to the Vatican and Scholar of Civilization
Interviewed May 2
Pope Francis passed away on April 21. Hailing from Argentina, he was the first pope elected from Latin America and devoted himself to church reform and diplomacy. We spoke with Mr. Kagefumi Ueno, former Ambassador to the Holy See and a scholar of civilization, about the legacy Pope Francis leaves behind and the future direction of the Catholic Church. (Interview conducted May 2.)
Before proceeding, I would like to clarify two essential points about the Pope and the Vatican.
First, Catholicism has maintained unity and consistency for 2,000 years while expanding globally, now encompassing 1.4 billion followers. This is, in fact, quite an “anomaly.”
Ordinarily, religions tend to fracture due to succession disputes or ideological divisions—this is the “norm.” For instance, in Protestantism, the number of denominations worldwide is countless. In Japan alone, there are over 180,000 registered religious corporations, and many have split from originally unified organizations. This is not unusual.
Against this backdrop, only Catholicism has managed to remain a single, unified church, grounded in its continuity and global nature over two millennia. Why is this possible? I believe the key lies in the “Papal system”—the institution of the pope. It is because the Church has been governed under the absolute authority and power of the pope. Each successive pope is regarded as the successor of Saint Peter (the first pope), inheriting the divine mission that Christ entrusted to Peter: to tend to His followers. The pope’s authority is rooted in Christ’s words. Other religions or denominations do not have a comparable institutional figure. For instance, the Eastern Orthodox Church may have national leaders, but it does not possess a transnational system equivalent to the papacy.
When viewed as a system or institution, the papacy reveals a certain degree of rationality and internal logic. Of course, there have been incompetent or dubious popes, but setting aside the personal attributes of individuals, one could say this: without the institution of the papacy, Catholicism would have splintered into dozens of sects long ago. I refer to this system as a “Papacy-Centered System.” This is one of the key premises when analyzing Catholicism and the Vatican.
The second point is terminological. Some say, “The Vatican City is the smallest sovereign nation but exerts a powerful global influence.” However, such statements often reflect a lack of fundamental understanding. To put it plainly, I myself was not, strictly speaking, an ambassador to the Vatican City State (VCS), but to the Holy See (HS). It is the Holy See, not the VCS, that holds membership in organizations like the United Nations and UNESCO.
The Holy See is an institution that has governed the Catholic world for 2,000 years, supporting the pope—it can even be described as a kind of “Catholic Holdings,” or the supreme command headquarters of global Catholicism. The Holy See consists of over 30 departments, including judicial bodies, which support the pope. It is also the Holy See that conducts diplomacy with foreign nations. Since diplomacy is conducted between sovereign entities, the Holy See must be recognized as such—it is indeed a sovereign state. Furthermore, it is a state rooted in a religious order. Similar states existed in the Middle Ages, such as the Knights of Malta or the Teutonic Order, but only the Holy See has survived to this day, making it a rare pre-modern type of state.
So, what then is the Vatican City State? In essence, it emerged from conflict. During the unification of Italy, the newly founded Kingdom of Italy annexed the Papal States, which had covered one-third of the Italian peninsula. In response, the pope secluded himself in the Apostolic Palace and severed ties with Italy for about 60 years—this was the so-called “Roman Question.”
In 1929, the Holy See signed an agreement with Italy, which led to the creation of the Vatican City State, based around the Apostolic Palace. Thus, the Vatican City State only came into existence relatively recently, within the 2,000-year history of Catholicism. The VCS functions as a “container” to provide a national framework for the otherwise non-territorial Holy See. In simple terms, the VCS is merely an administrative body that manages the buildings, gardens, and museums—it is responsible for administration, but not governance (i.e., religious or diplomatic affairs). Therefore, it plays no part in global politics and holds no global role. In reference to the earlier statement, it is not the VCS but the HS that wields global influence and status. While the Holy See has existed for 2,000 years, the VCS has only existed for 90.
When people talk about the Vatican, 70 to 80 percent of the time, they are actually referring to the Holy See—not the Vatican City State. However, since the term “Holy See” lacks the immediacy or familiarity of a country name, most media outlets, including in Japan, continue to use the word “Vatican” even when referring to the Holy See. Someone who insists on using “Holy See” might be seen as pretentious or a quirky enthusiast. In this sense, “Vatican” functions as a commonly accepted alias for the Holy See. The distinction between the HS and VCS is not widely understood. For further reference, I recommend my article “Let’s Review the Pope and the Vatican,” published on Kyodo News’ digital platform 47NEWS on September 13, 2019.
Let us now move on to the main topic.
Pope Francis, who was elected in 2013, was widely seen as “unprecedented” for several reasons: he was the first pope from Latin America, the first in over 1,300 years to be elected from outside Europe, the first pope from the Jesuit order, and the first in 600 years to succeed a pope who abdicated rather than died in office. Moreover, he had no prior experience as a Vatican bureaucrat—that is, he came not from the “center” but the “periphery,” if we visualize the Vatican as a set of concentric circles.
To begin with his character: even during his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires (note: the title “cardinal” is not a position but an honorific), he was known for his humble personality, openly engaging with ordinary people and shunning any sense of pomp or privilege. He disliked luxury and preferred simplicity and poverty—famously, he rejected official cars and preferred to commute by bus. This personal style continued even after he became pope.
With that in mind, I would like to highlight five key areas in which Pope Francis made efforts or pursued change.
First, he advocated for a Church that was open to the “Global South.”
At a time when churches in Europe were rapidly losing followers, Pope Francis expressed grave concern about the Vatican’s Eurocentric and inward-looking tendencies. He emphasized the need for reform: the elite-driven Church that had only looked “North” should become one that opened its arms to the “South”—that is, to the marginalized and the poor. He also called for a shift from clericalism to a more lay-centered approach. Moreover, he criticized the excessive centralization of decision-making in the Vatican, and instead advocated for decentralization and greater inclusion of regional voices. In line with this philosophy, he promoted more women within the Church and called for compassionate engagement with marginalized groups, such as divorcees and LGBTQ individuals, urging that they not be excluded from Mass or ostracized. (These ideas sparked considerable backlash from conservative factions.)
The clearest expression of this vision was seen in his personnel decisions.
The ultimate decision-making body of the Holy See is the conclave, which elects the pope. Traditionally, about 55% of the cardinals eligible to vote in conclaves were European, favoring the election of another European pope. Pope Francis sought to shift this trend by emphasizing appointments from the “periphery,” bypassing traditional power centers such as Milan and Venice, and instead elevating archbishops from the Global South who had not typically been made cardinals. Over time, this shift has altered the balance: in the upcoming conclave, the proportion of European cardinals will likely fall to around 40%, while cardinals have been appointed from countries such as Mongolia, Tonga, Myanmar, and Haiti—regions often associated with Buddhism or Islam. In this way, Pope Francis clearly expressed his desire for a Church that looked more toward the South. In today’s terms, we might call this a “Global South orientation.” Notably, the pope was ahead of the curve—he had already adopted a Global South mindset long before it became a common global talking point.
In short, Pope Francis tried to pivot the Church from a Europe-focused institution to one with a global outlook. He began initiatives to include voices from all over the world in Vatican governance. He sought to modernize longstanding centralized structures dating back to the Middle Ages. Naturally, these reforms were met with fierce resistance, especially from high-ranking European clergy and conservative circles. But it is clear that this shift—from centralism to a more inclusive, diversified Church—was among the most significant aspects of his papacy.
Second, let me reframe the same issue from another perspective: that of “market acquisition.”
Looking ahead 20 to 30 years, where will the Catholic Church face its most existential challenges? The answer, quite clearly, lies in Africa and Asia. In Western Europe, secularization is already far advanced, especially in countries like France, Sweden, and the Czech Republic, where modern civilization, Enlightenment thought, and modernism have steadily eroded the Church’s influence. In contrast, regions where the number of faithful is still increasing are Africa and, to a lesser extent, Asia. China and India, due to their sheer population size, are particularly critical. From this long-term perspective, the pope’s emphasis on the South was entirely rational.
In relation to China, the Holy See has long clashed with the government over the authority to appoint bishops. Theologically, a bishop appointed by the pope is believed to be endowed with special spiritual authority from God, whereas bishops appointed solely by the Chinese state lack such legitimacy—making them, in the Vatican’s eyes, “fake clergy.” Historically, successive popes have sought to negotiate with China, but Beijing consistently rejected what it viewed as foreign interference in its internal affairs.
However, in October 2018, a breakthrough was reached: the Holy See and China agreed on a provisional arrangement in which both parties would jointly approve the appointment of bishops. This agreement was extended in October of last year for an additional four years. Though the move has drawn criticism, it can be seen as a significant achievement for Pope Francis.
The issue of bishop appointments has long been contentious. For example, in France, Napoleon once nationalized the Catholic Church and gave himself the right to appoint bishops—an authority he later relinquished. What China attempted was based on the same logic.
However, unlike Napoleon’s era, China has not gone so far as to nationalize the Catholic Church. Among the estimated 12 million Chinese Catholics, about half belong to the so-called “underground” Church loyal to the pope. It’s easy to imagine that many among them long for communion with the Vatican. But interestingly, even among members of the state-sanctioned Church—often seen as Beijing-aligned—many reportedly feel an affinity toward the pope and value their connection with him. This seems to have persuaded Beijing that severing ties with Rome would not be prudent. In fact, by agreeing to the provisional accord, the Chinese government effectively recognized the pope’s authority to some extent. For a regime advocating for the “Sinicization” of religion, this concession is astonishing. From the Vatican’s perspective, securing this compromise—despite conservative criticism—was a noteworthy diplomatic achievement.
Third, one of the great roles of the pope is that of a “messenger of peace.”
Successive popes have consistently delivered messages on issues such as poverty, disarmament, denuclearization, peacebuilding, environmental protection, and migration. Under Pope Francis, he became even more proactive in addressing these topics—particularly non-proliferation, environmental issues, and peace (especially in recent times, he issued strong messages calling for peace in conflicts such as Ukraine and Gaza), as well as migration.
The pope’s messages are not limited to Catholic media—they are also widely covered by major international outlets and can therefore have significant global impact.
Additionally, Pope Francis had a remarkable ability to speak plainly and clearly about complex matters. That clarity, along with his authenticity, contributed to a certain charisma that underpinned his popularity.
On the issue of immigration, Pope Francis consistently called for compassion and leniency.
When many European countries began to close their doors to immigrants, including Italy, he strongly criticized those policies. He also condemned the forced deportations of immigrants under the Trump administration in the United States, describing them as “the worst.”
Fourth, Pope Francis was deeply committed to interreligious dialogue, particularly with Islam.
Having grown up in Buenos Aires—a city with significant Jewish and Muslim populations—he had been familiar with people of other faiths since childhood. This background likely helped foster a natural openness.
During his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, engaging in interfaith dialogue was simply a part of his life.
Finally, let us turn to what has been called the “Francis Effect.”
During the papacy of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the number of Catholic faithful in Western countries had plateaued, and even the number of visitors to the Vatican had begun to decline. However, under Pope Francis, visits to the Vatican rebounded.
His popularity extended beyond Catholics to members of other religions and denominations. In the United States, for example, he was viewed favorably by many ordinary believers, even though roughly 60% of American bishops—who lean conservative—were critical of him.
The emergence of Pope Francis had a substantial impact on the global community.
It will not be easy for the next pope—whoever that may be—to attain the same level of popularity or influence that Francis enjoyed.
Many of these reforms remain unfinished. The resistance and backlash from conservatives are by no means trivial.
Whether the next pope will inherit Pope Francis’ spirit and carry forward his reforms—or whether the Church will regress—remains to be seen. Everything hinges on the outcome of the conclave that begins on May 7.
With heartfelt prayers for the repose of Pope Francis, I conclude this reflection.
Kagefumi Ueno
Born in Tokyo in 1948. Graduated from the College of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, in 1970 and joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Holds a master’s degree in economics from Cambridge University. Served as Minister at the OECD Permanent Delegation, Minister at the Embassy of Japan in Spain, Consul General in Melbourne, and Ambassador to Guatemala. Served as Ambassador to the Holy See from 2006 to 2010. Afterward, he was a visiting professor at Kyorin University and a lecturer at Rikkyo University. His publications include The Sacred and Secular of the Vatican, A Theory of Contemporary Japanese Civilization, and The Celts and Japan (co-authored), among others.
