The bilateral pneumonia that led to Pope Francis’s hospitalisation for over a month between February and March was not caused by the COVID-19 virus. According to doctors, SARS-CoV-2 was not among the various viruses, bacteria, and fungi that colonised the pontiff's lungs. We have no reason to doubt these claims. The medical team that treated him at the Gemelli Hospital in Rome frequently reiterated during press conferences that Pope Francis urged them to be transparent with the public about his health condition.
We were informed about the challenges caused by the accumulation of thick mucus in the bronchi, each respiratory crisis, and even instances when these led to bouts of vomiting — an image that does not fit with the ethereal, solely spiritual, almost sanctified perception many still hold of the papal role. However, the pontiff himself did not want to be overlooked. Each statement was personally approved by him.
Why should we be surprised that Pope Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, did not attempt to hide his fully human side, one shared by many older individuals who don't receive such attention? What else could be expected from someone who, at the beginning of his pontificate, used a powerful but unconventional metaphor to the priests, stating that shepherds should be so close to their flock that they should not be afraid of "the smell of the sheep"? It is clear that he would not hide the real and metaphorical "smell" of old age and illness. Like John Paul II, who also passed away during the Easter holidays, he used his frail and suffering body as an instrument of testimony in a powerful experiment through nonverbal communication.
Clinical History
Pope Francis's medical history is well-documented: hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and diverticulitis that needed surgical intervention a few years ago. During the Pope’s last hospitalisation in February, Sergio Alfieri, MD, director of the Medical-Surgical Department of the Gemelli Hospital, asserted: "The Holy Father has always insisted that we tell the truth. Let us dispel any notion that there are undisclosed matters. What you have read is the truth."
There was nothing to hide. At 21, Bergoglio underwent surgery to remove the upper lobe of his right lung due to a chronic respiratory infection that could not be resolved otherwise, as he frequently shared. Whether the surgery was necessary due to tuberculosis, which was considered a taboo disease, or complications from the H2N2 influenza virus that was rampant in 1957, as the Pope has mentioned in his books and interviews, remains unclear. However, if this is unknown, it is only because these events are distant in time and space, difficult to verify with precise documentation, and of no real interest to the public. Not even if that initial health setback to the future Pope's health was due to a previous pandemic, such as the Asian flu of 1957.
Speculative Risks
My concern is not whether a contributing cause of COVID-19 infection was hidden. I do not believe so. My doubt lies in the current information and how it might influence the willingness to be transparent. If the new coronavirus had been among the many infectious agents responsible for the bilateral pneumonia, and potentially also a factor in the stroke that ultimately claimed his life on Easter Monday (though this could never be confirmed), would the Vatican's communication team have felt free to talk about it as they did by mentioning the aspiration of mucus or the retching of the Holy Father?
Imagine the headlines and comments. If Pope Francis had suffered from severe COVID-19 at this stage of the pandemic, public opinion would have been split in two. On one side, the stigma associated with the virus could have triggered a hunt: who had been in contact with the Pope in the days leading up to his illness. Who would want to give up the privilege of a private audience for a common cold? Or who among the staff had neglected to wear a mask, now that COVID-19 is no longer a topic of discussion. Who would be blamed for the loss of such a beloved figure?
On the other side, the worst reaction might have been the opposite. I can already envision the headlines of certain newspapers or TV shows questioning how pneumonia from COVID-19 could occur now that the pandemic is considered over. What are they still hiding? Either it is not true that he was vaccinated last autumn, or those claiming that the vaccine is harmful or ineffective are correct. The simplest and most scientific hypothesis — that in an elderly and frail individual, the booster protective effect against pneumonia might wane after a few months, possibly by February — would not fit well with the current media ecosystem, which thrives on strong emotional responses, especially if it is outrage.
It is fortunate that SARS-CoV-2 did not enter Santa Marta or the Vatican. Had it been responsible for the Pope's hospitalisation and subsequent stroke, the statements from global leaders, the public and private expressions of grief, the analyses of the Pope's legacy, and the ongoing speculation about his successor would have been accompanied by a surge of misinformation and hatred that we truly do not need. Therefore, the Pope did not die from, with, or shortly after COVID-19. Even a staunch advocate for transparency like myself would have hesitated before advising that a positive test result be openly communicated to the world, thinking of what would have been unleashed. This reflects the divisive climate that has emerged, even on topics such as a pandemic that should have brought us together against a common enemy, not split us into factions.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy.
