Evaluations of Pope Francis usually contrast him with his predecessors. When engaging in politics, however, he faces the same challenge as they did.
He must first strengthen the Catholic Church in its faith, and so influence national and international relationships by persuasion and diplomacy. His distinctive contribution will come through the way he embodies and commends his personal faith.
Pope John Paul II did this through strong personal leadership in which he was the authoritative face of a Catholic Church united and disciplined in faith. From that basis he could go among national leaders as an equal and commend humane values and resolutions to conflict.
Pope Benedict XVI was personally more reticent, but was also the authoritative face of the doctrinal and cultural tradition of the Catholic Church. He engaged politically as an ethical guide and teacher in a conflicted society.
In comparison with his predecessors Pope Francis' personal engagement both in the Catholic Church and in the political world has been through reversal and disruption.
He presents himself less as the authoritative leader of the church and of its tradition, than as an ordinary Catholic and human being among others. Remember the shock when after his election he insisted on paying his own hotel bill and on moving from the papal palace into the guest house.
This behaviour is rooted in his conviction that he is a sinner to whom God has shown great compassion and has called to follow Jesus. The joy of meeting a compassionate God in Jesus Christ is for him the heart of the Christian Gospel and tradition. The Gospel is commended when Christians go out humbly to others and show Christ's accepting and compassionate face.
That conviction shapes the way in which the Pope acts and speaks both in the church and more broadly. Many of his homilies are off the cuff and idiomatic in their language. His visits abroad often conclude with uncontrolled press conferences in the plane back home. He is happy to hear opposed views and to live with misunderstandings of his own.
"Trump and Duterte offer themselves as strong leaders who alone can disrupt established patterns of governance and so heal society. Francis divests himself of the trappings of strength and goes about as an undefended human being."
His ritual celebrations, too, often take him outside churches to join people in need. His striking Holy Thursday visit to a youth detention centre where he washed the feet, among others, of a Muslim woman prisoner was the precursor of a penitential service on Lampedusa for drowned refugees, regular visits to prisons, and a Mass on Lesbos for refugees seeking protection in Europe. He came less as ruler or teacher than as brother and friend.
For Francis faith and tradition are not foremost treasures to be protected but resources for living out the Gospel through personal encounter. When visiting prisoners and pushing into crowds to embrace disabled people he embodies a faithful church. In his addresses he insists that bishops and priests should always be compassionate in their dealings with those in need and in messy relationships. Catholics should not judge but welcome people on the margins.
Francis' reflections on the major issues of our times — the movement of peoples, economic settings that enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor, and the environment — also reflect his solidarity with people whose lives are blighted. His language is strong and concrete, particularly when criticising policies that canonise greed and self-interest. He speaks from the bottom and not from the top.
The Pope's identification with people who have been marginalised by the noxious aspects of globalisation and his distinctive papal style bear comparison with other contemporary disruptive political styles. People like Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and the promoters of Brexit also distinguish themselves from professional politicians and identify themselves with those harmed by the effects of globalisation. They and Pope Francis feed off the popular instinct that business as usual will not do in church or in society.
Despite these common features, however, there are significant differences in the disruptive politics of Francis and that of people like Trump and Duterte. The latter offer themselves as strong leaders who alone can disrupt established patterns of governance and so heal society. Francis divests himself of the trappings of strength and goes about as an undefended human being.
Disruptive political leaders, too, offer people a common set of enemies to hate: Muslims, Washington insiders, Brussels bureaucrats, petty criminals, refugees, Greenies etc. They promise to restore pride to the humiliated by excluding those who are different. Francis encourages people to identify themselves with those who are needy. They will find themselves and connect with others through compassion. And only that will lead to a better society.
Is Francis' style of political engagement effective? It has certainly gained him a favourable hearing within church and society. His message and his personality suit the times. Whether it will be lastingly effective will depend on whether he changes attitudes, particularly those of people who will be responsible for governance in church and state. But at the very least he has stressed the ethical and religious urgency of treating refugees, the environment, and the economy with respect.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.