Pope Francis has “shaken up”, and continues to shake up, the Church and the world. First of all, because his message is that of the Gospel. Then because his pontificate continues, in substantial continuity, with that of Leo XIV. And also because his message, his “ecclesial programme”, is particularly visible when starting from the “peripheries”, as he himself desired. This statement, marking one year since the death of Pope Francis — on 21 April 2025, Easter Monday —, was made by Professor Emilce Cuda, an Argentine theologian and philosopher who serves as Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, a role in which she worked closely with Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who chaired the same Commission before being elected Pope.
Professor, one year after the death of Pope Francis, which aspects of his vast magisterium are proving particularly fruitful? And what is his legacy from a pastoral point of view?
One year after the passing of Pope Francis, the fruits of his work are visible in the peripheries, exactly as he had outlined in his ecclesial programme. In fact, he worked in the peripheries, striving to ensure that the peripheries could reach the centre, following the model of an inverted pyramid. He also provided a method — the synodal method — which means that we must all sit at the same table and be willing to let ourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit, who speaks to us and is manifested through all creation. All this has had a strong impact on the Church in the peripheries and has borne fruit, which we are now experiencing and continuing.
And we are doing so with Pope Leo XIV…
Yes, this process is not something that begins and ends with a pontificate. Certainly, Pope Leo XIV has confirmed that he intends to follow Francis’ line with regard to this reality, particularly in caring for our common home. At the same time, however, we must go beyond this, because if we see it only in these terms, we continue to think of a top-down Church. We must look at what is happening in the peripheries; in the peripheries, this path has been embodied. Thus, Francis’ pontificate continues with Leo XIV not only because the Pope expresses this continuity, but also because the Church has embodied that new way of being which, in truth, is not new. This means proclaiming the Gospel by touching the suffering flesh of Christ in others, as stated in the first article of the new Constitution of the Roman Curia.
From a more strictly theological perspective, which paths have opened more widely with Pope Francis?
I will respond from the perspective of my field of expertise, namely social moral theology. I believe that in this area the path has been shaped by Latin American, North American and African theologians — the contexts with which I am most in contact — as well as some Asian theologians. They have begun to reflect starting from pastoral activity, from pastoral work. They have begun to listen and, from there, to build a theology that certainly does not neglect the Gospel, tradition and the social magisterium of the Church, but which is united and has – as Monsignor Enrique Angelelli used to say (editor’s note: the Argentine Bishop of La Rioja, killed ‘in odium fidei’ during the dictatorship) – one ear on the Gospel and the other on the people.
What are the consequences, the implications of this approach?
This way of doing theology ensures that pastoral activity itself becomes theological, that it begins to be constructed starting from reality. Reality is seen as the starting point. This is not something unique to the Church in Latin America or to Latin American culture, because taking reality as the starting point is common to all three Americas — North, Central and South. If one considers North American pragmatism, reality is also the starting point there. I believe there is something shared, from a theological perspective, in what these three Americas express, and it is what the last two Popes express: a culture that does not begin from ideas but from reality. That was not merely an expression Francis used or one of his four principles in Evangelii gaudium, where he stated that realities are greater than ideas. The fact that reality is the starting point forms part of the way knowledge is constructed in the Americas, not only from a theological perspective but also politically and economically. No one builds success, to take an extreme example, starting from an idea. Success is built starting from reality, by recognising available resources, identifying threats and devising strategies. Therefore, this Latin American — or more broadly American — way of constructing thought is part of theology. It cannot be underestimated in a Church that firmly believes that God became incarnate, became man, died and rose again. These are all realities that lead us to affirm that Jesus Christ is not an idea. The very God in whom we believe is a reality, according to the Creed we profess. Therefore, anyone who claims that ideas are superior to reality would in fact be practising another religion.
How can continuity between Francis and Leo XIV be observed, especially in the commitment to peace, within this context of a “third world war fought piecemeal”?
When speaking of continuity, one must also consider differences. The global political and economic context has changed considerably since the time when the “piecemeal war” described by Francis began. During his twelve years of pontificate, governments across the world were largely popular in orientation, and the message of the Church accompanied those contexts. Today, the scenario is different. We are in a piecemeal war whose dynamics are deeply striking; yet in Africa and Latin America people die every day in invisible wars. The economic and political landscape under Leo XIV has changed. Continuity, as the Pope affirmed during his recent journey to Africa, consists in always proclaiming the Gospel and defending dialogue as a method of the Church’s social teaching. At the same time, there will also be differences, because the actors have changed: not only the Pontiff, but also presidents and economic hegemonies. We cannot expect continuity understood as absolute identity, but rather an evangelisation that accompanies new times — times that are sorrowful today, though they were no less so under Francis. Some die from missiles, others from lack of medicine; some from bullets, others from hunger. Every life matters.
Do you have any personal memory of Francis, especially from the final part of his life, that you can share with us?
I considered Pope Francis not only a Pontiff, but also a friend. He was very fond of my family and remembered the names of my children. Until the very end, he would call me to ask how they were. It was a constant attentiveness to family concerns and to the lives of those of us who worked with him. He always asked whether we were happy and joyful. It was his first question when he saw us, asking whether we were enjoying ourselves, and then he would seriously encourage us to continue our commitment as apostles, without fear and with joy. Beyond his role as a leader, the fact that he took an interest in our personal happiness is not something common.
