How Would the Church Handle Saint Francis Today?

Brief Overview

• The modern Catholic Church has established detailed procedures for approving new religious orders and movements, requiring Vatican approval and careful examination of their founders’ reliability and the authenticity of their spiritual focus.
• Religious orders today must demonstrate sound governance structures, proper financial management, and safety protocols to protect the rights and dignity of all members, standards that did not exist in Francis’s time.
• Saint Francis’s own approach to obedience and his willingness to work within Church authority would likely help his movement gain approval, as the modern Church values those who submit to proper oversight.
• The Church today emphasizes the importance of testing new spiritual movements over time to ensure they are genuine expressions of the Holy Spirit rather than mere enthusiasm or harmful structures.
• If a figure like Saint Francis appeared in the modern Catholic Church with an identical message of radical poverty and simplicity, the Vatican would not immediately reject such a movement but would subject it to rigorous evaluation.
• While the spiritual principles that motivated Francis remain valid and valued in the Church, the administrative and safety requirements would make it necessary for any similar movement today to navigate a more complex approval process.

The Vatican’s Initial Response to a Modern Franciscan Movement

If a contemporary figure embodied Saint Francis’s radical commitment to poverty and Gospel living, the Church would not dismiss this person out of hand. The Vatican maintains an openness to new expressions of religious life and spiritual charisms, as long as they arise from genuine faith and serve the Church’s mission. Pope Francis himself took his name in honor of Saint Francis, signaling that Franciscan values remain central to Catholic identity in the modern world. The Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life would be tasked with examining any proposed religious movement that claimed to follow a Franciscan charism. This Vatican office has extensive experience evaluating new communities and distinguishing authentic spiritual movements from mere enthusiasm or problematic groups. The initial inquiry would begin with the diocesan bishop in the area where the movement started, who would be responsible for conducting a preliminary investigation into the founder’s character, background, and teachings. The bishop would consult with other priests and with people who knew the founder well to gather information about their personal integrity and spiritual credibility. Historical records would be examined to verify facts about the founder’s life and to ensure that claims about visions or spiritual experiences were not exaggerated. Any disciplinary problems in the founder’s past would be investigated thoroughly to determine whether they reflected a pattern of poor judgment or simply youthful mistakes that had been genuinely repented and overcome. The initial assessment would take months or even years, as Church officials wanted to avoid rushing into approval of any movement based solely on initial impressions or emotional appeal.

How the Church Would Evaluate the Movement’s Structure and Governance

The modern Church would require a detailed written rule and clear governance structure before approving any new religious order, something that differs significantly from Francis’s experience. When Saint Francis began his movement in the early 13th century, formal written rules came later, after much of his work had already spread widely through the Church. Francis himself initially taught by personal example and through direct conversation with his brothers, without extensive written documentation of procedures and practices. Today, diocesan bishops and Vatican officials would insist on a complete set of constitutions outlining how the community would function, including rules about property ownership, community living arrangements, work assignments, prayer schedules, and disciplinary procedures. The written rule would need to address not just spiritual aspirations but practical matters like what happened when members became ill or too elderly to continue physical labor. Clear guidelines would be required regarding finances, including how money would be received, managed, stored, and used for the community’s needs and charitable works. A professional accounting system with regular audits would be mandatory, not optional, reflecting the Church’s commitment to financial transparency in all religious communities. The governance structure would need to specify who held authority, how decisions were made, and what procedures existed for members to appeal decisions they viewed as unjust. Multiple levels of leadership would be required, rather than all authority resting in a single founder figure, to ensure that power was properly distributed and that no single person could cause harm through abuse of authority. Term limits for leadership positions would likely be prescribed, preventing long-term concentration of power in the hands of one individual or small group. Procedures for handling conflicts between members would need to be outlined in advance, with fair processes for investigation and resolution of disputes. The protection of women members and their full participation in community governance would be essential components of the rule, reflecting modern Church teachings about equality and dignity.

The Investigation of the Founder’s Personal Character and Motivation

Church officials would conduct an extensive investigation into the founder’s personal history, spiritual experiences, and motivation for establishing a new community. This investigation would be much more thorough than anything that occurred in Francis’s time, when such formal vetting procedures did not exist. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would be consulted to ensure that the founder’s teachings were consistent with Catholic doctrine and not promoting any heresy or theological error. Specialists trained in psychology and group dynamics might be consulted to assess whether the founder’s approach to leadership was healthy or whether it showed signs of narcissism, authoritarianism, or the development of a personality cult around the leader. Interviews would be conducted with people who had left the movement as well as those who remained, to understand both positive and negative experiences within the community. Any reports of spiritual or physical abuse would be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, with particular attention to whether such incidents were isolated problems or part of a pattern. Financial records would be scrutinized to ensure that community money had been used properly and not diverted to the founder’s personal benefit or spent on luxuries inconsistent with claimed vows of poverty. Claims about the founder’s spiritual experiences, such as visions or miraculous healings, would be examined carefully and would not automatically be accepted at face value. The Church has learned through centuries of experience that not all claims of spiritual experiences are genuine, and some arise from mental illness, emotional instability, or deliberate deception. Testimony from witnesses who claimed to have experienced miracles through the founder’s intercession would need to meet strict medical and scientific standards before being accepted as evidence of authentic holiness. Any history of deception or significant dishonesty on the founder’s part would be a major red flag, as the Church understood that those leading religious communities needed to be trustworthy and honest in all their dealings. The founder’s willingness to submit to Church authority and to accept corrections from bishops and Vatican officials would be viewed as a positive sign of genuine humility and spiritual maturity.

Understanding the Modern Context of Religious Communities

The modern Catholic Church exists in a world very different from the medieval world in which Saint Francis lived and worked. In the 13th century, society had far fewer structures for protecting vulnerable people, and religious communities operated almost entirely outside any legal regulation by civil authorities. Today, religious communities must comply with local, state, and national laws regarding labor practices, safety standards, financial accounting, and prevention of abuse. These legal requirements are not merely bureaucratic obstacles but reflect genuine moral obligations to protect people from harm. The Church has become painfully aware through scandals in recent decades that communities without adequate safeguards, transparency, and oversight can become places where abuse thrives. Diocesan bishops and Vatican officials now understand that good intentions and spiritual fervor alone are insufficient to guarantee that a community will function safely and justly. The fact that the founder claims to be motivated purely by love of God and desire to serve others does not guarantee that the community will be organized in ways that prevent exploitation or misconduct. The Church would therefore require any new religious order to submit to regular inspections and reviews, with Vatican officials maintaining ongoing authority to intervene if problems emerged. If serious issues were discovered, the Vatican reserves the right to remove leadership, impose reforms, or dissolve the community entirely. This willingness to exercise authority even after initial approval reflects the Church’s commitment to the welfare of community members as its highest priority. The era of allowing charismatic founders to operate entirely as they saw fit, without interference or accountability, has ended. Modern Church leadership views accountability structures not as distractions from spiritual work but as essential components of authentic Christian community. A contemporary founder like Saint Francis would need to accept and work cooperatively with this framework of oversight and accountability, understanding it as serving the good of the community rather than as an obstacle to his spiritual mission.

The Role of Written Documentation and Transparency

The Church would require extensive written documentation of the proposed community’s vision, mission, and practices before approving any new religious order. Saint Francis lived in an era before printing technology existed, and his teachings were transmitted orally and through personal example to his followers. Some of his key insights were only recorded in writing after his death, through the efforts of later hagiographers and historians. The modern Church cannot operate in this way, as written documentation provides essential continuity, clarity, and accountability. Every person joining the community would need to receive a clear written description of what membership meant, what vows would be required, what physical and emotional demands they would face, and what the community would provide in return. Prospective members would be required to read and understand these documents before making any commitment, protecting them from entering a situation under false pretenses or without complete information. The community’s teachings about spirituality, theology, and Christian living would need to be documented and reviewed by Church specialists to ensure they aligned with Catholic doctrine. Any unusual practices or novel teachings would need to be explained and justified by reference to Scripture and Church tradition. The community’s history of financial transactions would need to be preserved and made available for inspection by diocesan officials and Vatican auditors. Written records would be maintained of major community decisions, disciplinary actions taken against members, and how conflicts had been resolved. These records would serve multiple purposes, including protecting the community from false accusations and ensuring that decisions were made fairly and consistently according to established procedures. If the founder claimed that the Holy Spirit guided the community’s decisions and that written rules or documentation was unnecessary, Church officials would view this claim with deep skepticism. They would recognize it as potentially masking autocratic leadership or lack of accountability. The modern Church has learned that authentic spiritual communities do not require members to abandon reason or documentation in the name of faith. Rather, they combine genuine spiritual commitment with practical wisdom, clear procedures, and accountability to legitimate Church authority.

The Requirement for Proper Training and Formation of Members

The Church would insist on a structured program for forming new members of any approved religious community, rather than allowing each person to learn simply through osmosis and personal direction from the founder. Saint Francis initially trained his followers in an informal way, teaching them through his personal example and through direct conversation about how to live the Gospel authentically. This approach worked in the early stages when the community was small and Francis could personally know and teach each person. However, as the community grew rapidly, it became necessary to develop more structured formation programs to ensure consistency and to maintain quality. The modern Church understands that new members need systematic training in theology, Scripture, the history and charism of their particular religious community, and practical skills for living community life successfully. They would need instruction about matters like how to handle money within the framework of vows of poverty, how to maintain healthy relationships with other community members, and how to seek appropriate help when struggling with psychological or spiritual difficulties. A structured novitiate period would be essential, during which new members would live in the community, observe how it actually functioned day to day, and decide whether this life was genuinely right for them. They would take temporary vows during this period, typically lasting several years, rather than permanent vows, allowing them and the community to assess whether the fit was good. Experienced teachers within the community would be identified and given time to focus on formation of new members, rather than expecting the founder to personally teach everyone. Written materials would document the formation curriculum, including what spiritual direction new members would receive, what classes they would attend, and what practical skills they would develop. Psychological screening before entry and ongoing pastoral counseling during the formation period would help identify any members who were psychologically unstable or who had unhealthy motivations for joining. The formation program itself would be subject to review by diocesan officials to ensure it was solid and appropriate. Any report of abuse or inappropriate conduct by formators would be investigated immediately and taken seriously. The goal would be to help new members make genuinely free and informed decisions about whether to commit themselves to this way of life, protecting them from pressure, coercion, or manipulation.

How the Church Would Handle the Question of Miracles and Canonization

If the modern Saint Francis became widely known and popular, questions would inevitably arise about whether this person was a saint and might be proposed for canonization. The Church has specific procedures for investigating claims of holiness and miracles, and these procedures are designed to be rigorous and skeptical, not credulous. Any miracles attributed to the founder’s intercession would need to meet strict scientific standards and be verified by physicians and other experts before being accepted by the Church. The process would begin with a diocesan investigation into the founder’s life and virtues, examining whether this person genuinely lived a holy life characterized by love of God, love of neighbor, and adherence to the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Historical records would be consulted and numerous witnesses would be interviewed to gather evidence about the person’s character and spiritual development. This investigation could take many years, and the conclusion was never foregone. The Church has rejected some proposed candidates for sainthood even after extensive investigation revealed that their reputation for holiness was not well-founded. If the diocesan investigation concluded that the founder had lived heroic virtue, the case would be advanced to the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints in Rome, where specialists with years of experience in evaluating such cases would review the evidence. These officials would scrutinize the documentation carefully, raising difficult questions and seeking clarification about any ambiguous points. Medical and scientific experts would be brought in to examine any claimed miracles, requiring absolute certainty that no natural explanation existed for the healing or other extraordinary event. The standards for evaluating miracles have become increasingly rigorous over the centuries, reflecting the Church’s commitment to truth and her unwillingness to canonize someone unless genuinely convinced of their sanctity. Multiple miracles would be required before canonization could occur, protecting against the possibility that a few extraordinary events might be attributed to someone who was not actually holy. The entire process typically requires decades or even centuries, allowing time for a full assessment of the person’s legacy and influence on the Church. A contemporary Francis would likely not be canonized until well after his death, if at all, regardless of how impressed people were during his lifetime. The Church’s experience with deception and false claims has taught her to be patient and thorough in such matters.

The Vatican’s Assessment of the Movement’s Service and Impact

Vatican officials would carefully examine what concrete good the proposed movement was actually accomplishing in the world and whether it served the Church’s mission to evangelize and serve the poor. Saint Francis and his followers lived in service to the poorest and most marginalized people of their time, and they established hospitals, schools, and other institutions to meet urgent human needs. The modern Church would want to verify that a contemporary Franciscan movement was similarly focused on real service to real people, not simply on creating a community for its own sake or on gaining prestige and influence. The movement would be evaluated based on the actual outcomes it produced, including numbers of poor people served, quality of services provided, feedback from those receiving help, and whether the community was genuinely welcomed and trusted by the populations it aimed to serve. If a proposed order claimed to follow Francis’s charism but spent most of its time on internal activities and spiritual practices without significant external ministry, Church officials would question whether the movement truly embodied the Franciscan spirit of radical service. They would also examine whether the community’s claims about helping others were exaggerated or whether they could be verified through independent sources. The movement’s relationship with the local Church and with the bishop would be crucial; a community that operated in genuine collaboration with diocesan structures and that supported the broader mission of the Church would be viewed more favorably than one that operated independently or that seemed to view itself as separate from or superior to the ordinary Church. The Vatican would want to understand how the proposed community would handle sustainability, including what would happen when the founder could no longer lead the movement. Communities based entirely on the charisma of a single leader often collapsed after that leader’s death or retirement, leaving behind chaos and disillusionment. A movement with genuine long-term potential would need to have developed leaders at multiple levels, would have established systems and procedures that could continue operating effectively even if the founder became incapacitated, and would have trained younger members to think critically about the charism and to adapt it thoughtfully to changing circumstances. The Church’s experience with religious orders that had lasted for centuries provided valuable evidence about what characteristics made movements sustainable and life-giving for the Church.

The Question of Innovation Within Catholic Tradition

The modern Church recognizes that genuine spiritual renewal often comes through new religious movements and communities that bring fresh energy and renewed commitment to the Gospel. The Second Vatican Council explicitly affirmed that the Holy Spirit continues to work in the Church, raising up new expressions of religious life that meet the needs of contemporary times. A modern Saint Francis who brought radical commitment to poverty, simplicity, and service to the poor would not be viewed as a threat to the Church but potentially as a gift and a sign of the Holy Spirit’s continued action. However, the Church would also want to ensure that any new movement remained genuinely rooted in Catholic faith and was not promoting a distorted version of Christianity. The founder would need to demonstrate deep knowledge of Scripture and Church tradition and would need to show how his teachings were grounded in authentic Catholic spirituality. If the movement promoted teachings that seemed to contradict essential Church doctrine, or if it encouraged members to view themselves as more faithful or more advanced than ordinary Catholics, this would be cause for serious concern. The Vatican would want to verify that the proposed community genuinely loved the Church and the Eucharist and viewed itself as part of the Church rather than as a superior alternative path. A movement that encouraged members to view the Pope and bishops with suspicion or that portrayed itself as a corrective to the Church’s alleged failures would not receive approval. On the other hand, a movement that brought prophetic witness to the Gospel, that challenged comfortable materialism and called people to radical generosity, and that lived out authentic poverty and service would be recognized as a genuine charism enriching the Church. The Vatican would appreciate how such a movement could awaken the universal Church to Gospel values that are always important but that modern society tends to downplay or ignore. The willingness to subject oneself to Church authority and to accept correction and guidance would actually strengthen the case for approval and recognition.

The Role of Canon Law and Formal Approval Processes

Before any new religious movement could operate permanently, it would need to go through the formal processes established in canon law for approving religious institutes and societies of apostolic life. Canon 579 of the Code of Canon Law stipulates that diocesan bishops can establish religious institutes within their dioceses, but only with prior written permission from the Apostolic See, meaning the Pope. This requirement, which has been strengthened in recent years by Pope Francis, ensures that new religious communities receive proper Vatican oversight from the beginning. The founder and the bishop together would need to submit detailed documentation to Rome, including the proposed rule, governance structure, description of the community’s charism and mission, financial plan, and information about the founder’s background and motivation. Vatican officials would review these materials carefully, often requesting clarifications or modifications before giving approval. If the Vatican identified significant problems or concerns, it would return the proposal with specific suggestions for changes, and the founder and bishop would be required to address these concerns before resubmission. The approval process could take many months or even several years, reflecting the Vatican’s commitment to careful discernment. Once provisional approval was granted, the community would be established as a “public association of the faithful” initially, rather than as a full religious institute. This transitional status would allow the community to operate under Church authority while being closely observed and evaluated. Members during this period would make temporary vows rather than permanent ones, protecting their freedom to leave if the community proved unhealthy. The bishop and Vatican officials would maintain regular contact with the community leadership, reviewing its progress and listening to feedback from members. If the community demonstrated genuine commitment to its charism, treated its members well, maintained financial transparency, and cooperated fully with Church oversight, it would eventually be approved as a full religious institute of diocesan right. Further growth and expansion would require additional Vatican approvals, preventing a community from suddenly expanding beyond what could be properly supervised and supported.

Comparing Medieval and Modern Standards for Religious Communities

The stark differences between how Saint Francis’s movement was approved in the 13th century and how a modern movement would be evaluated reflect the Church’s hard-won lessons from centuries of experience with religious communities. In Francis’s time, the primary concern was that a new movement should be free from heresy and should genuinely serve the Church’s spiritual mission. The Pope and bishops gave their approval relatively quickly because they viewed Francis as a genuine servant of Christ whose radical commitment to Gospel living was authentic and inspiring. However, the medieval Church operated without systematic procedures for investigating founders’ backgrounds, verifying claims of miracles, or preventing abuses of power within communities. Over subsequent centuries, religious communities sometimes became places where abuse, exploitation, and misconduct flourished because there were inadequate safeguards and accountability mechanisms. Stories emerged of founders who used their spiritual authority to manipulate and harm followers, yet remained protected by the Church’s reluctance to intervene in the internal affairs of religious communities. In more recent decades, particularly following the Second Vatican Council, the Church has worked to develop better procedures for protecting community members and ensuring accountability. Canon law has been revised multiple times to strengthen Vatican oversight of diocesan-right religious institutes and to establish clearer procedures for handling problems when they emerge. The Church has recognized that protecting vulnerable people who have taken vows of obedience to a community superior is not an invasion of spiritual life but rather a requirement of basic human dignity and Christian justice. A modern Francis would benefit from these protective structures, even if they seemed burdensome compared to the simpler approval processes his historical counterpart experienced. The careful discernment, written documentation, training programs, and ongoing oversight would help ensure that the community remained healthy and life-giving for its members. These structures would protect not just individual members but the community itself, preventing the kind of crises that have damaged so many religious institutes in recent history.

The Ongoing Relationship Between the Community and Church Authority

Once approved, a new religious community like a modern Franciscan order would continue to exist in relationship with Church authority, answering to both the local diocesan bishop and to the Vatican. This ongoing accountability represents a fundamental aspect of how religious life functions in the modern Catholic Church. The diocesan bishop would retain responsibility for overseeing the community and would need to approve important decisions regarding expansion to other dioceses, significant changes to the rule, or major financial commitments. The bishop would also have authority to investigate complaints from community members and to intervene if he determined that the community leadership was mishandling serious issues. Vatican officials would maintain oversight through the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life, receiving regular reports about the community’s activities, membership, financial status, and any significant developments. If problems emerged, the bishop would be expected to address them in the first instance, but the Vatican retained the authority to intervene directly if necessary. This might involve removing leadership, imposing reforms, requiring specific remedial actions, or in extreme cases dissolving the community. The community superior would not hold absolute authority over members but rather would exercise authority as delegated by the Church, exercising it always within the confines of canon law and in accordance with the community’s rule. Members unhappy with decisions could appeal to higher Church authority, including ultimately the Vatican itself, which might overturn a superior’s decision if it violated the rule or violated Church law. This structure might seem hierarchical and restrictive to people unfamiliar with how religious life works, but it actually serves important purposes including ensuring accountability, protecting members’ rights, and maintaining the community’s fidelity to its founding charism. A modern Saint Francis would need to understand and accept this structure as part of what it means to be a recognized religious community within the Catholic Church. His willingness to embrace accountability and to work cooperatively with bishops and Vatican officials would actually strengthen rather than weaken his community’s standing in the Church.

The Challenge of Sustainability and Long-Term Vision

One question that Church officials would carefully consider regarding any new religious movement is whether it has sufficient vision and structure to endure beyond the lifetime of its founder. Saint Francis’s own movement faced such questions during and after his lifetime, and the order eventually developed complex structures to preserve and sustain the charism. The Franciscans eventually divided into multiple branches because different communities interpreted the founder’s vision differently, yet the core charism survived and continues to influence the Church today, nearly eight hundred years after Francis’s death. A contemporary movement claiming to follow a Franciscan charism would need to demonstrate that it was thinking carefully about what would happen when the founder retired or died. The Vatican would want to see that potential future leaders were being identified and prepared to eventually take over leadership of the community. Written documents would need to preserve the essential teachings and vision of the founder so that subsequent generations could understand and build upon that foundation. The community would need to maintain its commitment to core values like poverty, simplicity, and service to the poor even if external circumstances changed in ways that required adapting specific practices. A movement that thought only about the present moment and did not plan for continuity would not be approved for long-term establishment. The Church’s approval process would include explicit discussion with the founder about succession planning and about how the community’s leadership would transition when change became necessary. The founder would need to demonstrate a willingness to develop other leaders and to eventually step aside, rather than attempting to hold power until death or incapacity. This requirement might seem harsh, but it actually protects both the community and the founder from unhealthy dynamics that can emerge when a single person holds power for decades without succession planning. A founder who could model how to let go of power gracefully and who genuinely wanted to prepare others to carry forward the mission would be demonstrating mature spiritual leadership. The Church has seen many examples of how founders who refused to let go of power caused their communities to collapse when they finally passed from the scene, creating situations of confusion and conflict as various factions competed to claim the true legacy.

The Incorporation of Modern Understandings of Human Psychology and Community Dynamics

Modern Church leadership brings to their evaluation of religious communities an understanding of human psychology, group dynamics, and organizational behavior that was not available in Saint Francis’s time. The Church now recognizes that communities can develop unhealthy patterns of authority and control even when individual participants have good intentions and genuinely believe they are serving God. Specialists trained in psychology would be consulted to evaluate whether a proposed founder’s leadership style was healthy or whether it showed warning signs of narcissism, authoritarianism, or the development of a personality cult. The Church has learned that people’s psychological health and their spiritual development are not separate domains but are deeply intertwined. A community that harmed people psychologically, even in the name of spiritual development or Christ-like sacrifice, would not be approved or supported by the modern Church. The formation program for new members would include attention to psychological adjustment and would involve professional counseling resources. If a founder attempted to use spiritual authority to justify psychological abuse, isolation of members from outside contact, or coercive control, this would immediately disqualify the proposed community from approval. The Church now understands that authentic Christian community honors human freedom and dignity and does not require members to abandon reason or critical thinking in the name of faith. A modern Franciscan movement would need to demonstrate that it understood these principles and was committed to building community in ways that were psychologically healthy and that genuinely respected the freedom and dignity of each person. This represents a significant evolution from medieval understandings of religious obedience, but it reflects the Church’s deeper recognition of what genuine Christian love actually requires. A founder like Saint Francis who already embodied such virtues would have nothing to fear from this scrutiny, and his community would benefit from the protective structures that modern Church oversight provides.

Conclusion: How Francis’s Own Qualities Would Serve Him Today

If Saint Francis of Assisi appeared in the modern Church with an identical message of radical poverty and commitment to the Gospel, his own personal qualities would actually help him navigate the approval process successfully. Francis was a man of genuine humility who viewed himself as a sinner in need of God’s grace, and this authentic humility would serve him well in submitting to investigation and oversight by Church officials. He was obedient to the Church and to the Pope, even when his own vision sometimes seemed to exceed what Church authorities had initially imagined, and this willingness to work within ecclesiastical structures would facilitate approval of his movement. Francis demonstrated wisdom in accepting corrections from Church officials when they suggested that his rule needed modification, and this openness to guidance would give modern Church leaders confidence in his leadership. He lived out his own teachings in radical fashion, not asking his followers to do anything he was not willing to do himself, and this consistency between his words and his deeds would be verified through investigation and would support his credibility. Francis accumulated no wealth or power for himself and did not use his growing influence for personal aggrandizement, and the absence of such temptations would be evident to those who investigated his life. He genuinely loved the poor and served them with compassion and respect, not as objects of charitable works but as brothers and sisters deserving of dignity, and the communities his movement established would demonstrate this authentic concern. He understood himself as part of the Church rather than as a reformer standing outside it criticizing its failures, and his movement would naturally incorporate itself into rather than separate itself from diocesan structures. These qualities that made Francis a saint in the medieval Church would continue to serve him well in the modern Church. While the procedural requirements would be more demanding and the investigation more thorough, the underlying reality of genuine holiness and authentic spiritual charism would ultimately be recognized and affirmed. The modern Church, for all its bureaucratic structures and formal procedures, remains fundamentally committed to recognizing and nurturing authentic expressions of the Holy Spirit’s work in the world. A figure of genuine spiritual power who embodied Gospel values and who submitted humbly to Church authority would find that path to recognition and approval, even if the journey was longer and more complex than in the medieval Church.