I rarely feel this way about someone of Pope Francis' age and social position, but I've genuinely admired Francis as a thinker. He was a bona fide Jesuit, through and through. The next pope has big shoes to fill.
I have heard yesterday on some Catholic TV channel that Benedict had already done the theological clarification work during his mandate, and that Francis - who was already the runner-up to Benedict and knew he was likely to be next in line - knew his task would be more about preaching - thus his strong media game (and as he person it suited him well too, he seemed really approchable and outgoing).
Note that Antiqua et Nova was authored by the Church. With its profound philosophical tradition, the Church offers insights in this text that surpass anything ever written by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.
I’ll also add that many of his admirers as well as his detractors exaggerated his virtues, his merits, and his flaws. He was both the victim of a media and film industry all too eager to spin him into the “progressive pope” — never shying away from quoting him out of context to push an agenda — and the issuer of problematic and ambiguous documents and off-the-cuff remarks that only served to generate confusion.
Intellectually, Benedict XVI and John Paul II were in a different league. As far as the Jesuits are concerned, I know that in the popular imagination, the Jesuits are imagined to be some kind of “progressive”, intellectually superior order, but historically, they were sort of the shock troops of the Church. They certainly have merits to their name. While they did become involved in education, they drew from the traditions of education in the Church. Education and scholarship, however, are not their charism. Compare that with the Dominicans, for example, who have teaching and education as their mission (Thomas Aquinas is probably their most famous member).
> But jesuits are historically linked to education and the sciences, this is a fact.
Isn't that what I said? I merely said it is not their charism, not their specialty. The point is that in the popular imagination, people elevate them above orders who not only have a better historical record, but whose mission is to educate, study, etc.
That isn't to downplay the good contributions of the Jesuits, but I can point you to Jesuits (who, as an order, are in poor shape these days, tbh) who would say the same thing. The popular imagination is simply ignorant or tendentious on this point in its exaggeration relative to the others.
Jesuit scholarship, especially in the last 100 years, is noteworthy for generating impressive literature while contributing close to nothing to the Church. See Rahner, Balthasar, de Lubac, Chardin... Garbage through and through
