Under normal conditions, a pope releasing a highly personal memoir about his life would create quite a few headlines.

However, that doesn’t seem to be the case with “Life: My Story Through History,” the new autobiography from Pope Francis, co-written with Carlo Musso, founder of the Italian publishing company Libreria Pienogiorno. That’s strange, since this is being hailed as the first memoir from a sitting pope.

Why the lack of mainstream-media ink? That question was the starting point for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. The Lutheran Public Radio team also asked me to get creative and list some questions that I would ask Pope Francis if I had a chance to interview him about the book.

Obviously, “Hope” is getting some news coverage. The “problem,” if there is one, is that the book contains lots of material about the pope’s life, especially his childhood, and very little new, headline-igniting material about the controversial issues faced during his pontificate. Anyone interested in new material about doctrine or worship will, apparently, learn little from this memoir.

The initial “Hope” report from the National Catholic Reporter, a major voice on the Catholic left, noted:

While Hope may be rich in memories from his childhood that shaped the future pope, it is light on revelations about the pontificate itself.

Despite advanced age and limited mobility, Francis insists in the memoir that his overall health is fine and that he intends to press on.

Can you hear the yawns in many newsrooms?

Also, this memoir repeats some of this pope’s earlier stands on some controversial issues in moral theology. For example, quoting a report in the conservative National Catholic Register:

In “Life: My Story Through History,” Pope Francis also states his views on some of the most pressing issues facing the Church and society.

He reiterates his description of abortion as “a criminal act” akin to hiring “hitmen.”

“No more abortions, please! It is essential to always defend and promote conscientious objection.”

The Pope also condemns surrogacy as “inhuman,” as it “threatens the dignity of men and women, with children treated as commodities.”

These are not, to say the least, the kinds of quotes that will draw major coverage in secular media.

Ah, but here is the kind of memoir material that caught my interest. The National Catholic Reporter feature — “5 takeaways from Pope Francis' new autobiography” — included an interesting anecdote offering a window into one of the hot doctrinal questions that would interest many Catholics and pope-watchers.

The pope has made no secrets about his regular meetings with transgender people at the Vatican or his frequent encounters with the poor and homeless. And even if he bristles at the notion of being characterized as a street priest — and suggests he is unworthy of the title — Francis' attention to society's most marginalized shine through in this book, even from his earliest days as a minister.

No story captures this better than a memory of two "high-class" prostitutes whom he had known for ages. Upon becoming an auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires, one of them asked him to hear confessions and celebrate Mass for a group of her friends.

The future pope obliged and the two remained in touch until she died.

“I was very fond of her," he writes. "Even now, I don't forget to pray for her on the day of her death."

OK, in terms of Catholic moral theology, ministry to the “poor and homeless” does not raise the same kinds of tough moral questions that a priest would face hearing confessions and celebrating Mass with a congregation assembled by a “high-class” prostitute.

Are we talking about a small circle of ladies (or men) of the night? Would the flock include some of their clients?

More questions: Did Musso ask the pope whether he asked any of the penitents to, well, leave their line of work? Did the future pope have thoughts about what kind of “penance” he would request before these Catholics received Holy Communion?

Why would this episode be newsworthy, as opposed to merely interesting?

Some of the most important clashes — doctrinally speaking — between Pope Francis and what he considers a pack of ultraconservative U.S. bishops have centered on how to handle the sacramental lives of Catholics who have, in public word or deed, rejected church doctrines on issues such as abortion, marriage or gender. Here’s a typical headline: “These Catholic Bishops Support Holy Communion Ban for Nancy Pelosi.”

OK, it’s blunt to compare politicians and prostitutes. However, clashes between Catholicism and the Sexual Revolution frequently make headlines.

Thus, one of my proposed questions for Pope Francis would have addressed a very common puzzle of this kind: How do you think priests should handle the weddings of couples who are cohabitating and sexually active before marriage?

Two of my other proposed questions focused on this pope’s work with bishops on both sides of the doctrinal divides inside the American church (and elsewhere).

For example: Why do the American dioceses that you have granting cardinals tend to be in statistical decline (in terms of producing seminarians, etc.), while those you have avoided are often growing?

Or maybe: Why do you think significant numbers of young adults, in Europe and America, are joining churches with traditional approaches to liturgy?

The memoir does spend some time addressing issues linked to the clergy sexual-abuse crisis, including the case of the fallen cardinal, Theodore McCarrick.

If given a chance, I would want to ask Pope Francis: I know that you cannot discuss what happened in the papal conclave, but do you believe Cardinal McCarrick spoke the truth when he described (in a famous address at Villanova University) being a major player in efforts to elect you? What did McCarrick mean when he quoted a “very influential man in Rome” saying that, in a mere five years, you could “do it,” that you could “make the Church over again?”

For more background on that question, see this 2023 GetReligion post: “Thinking about the legacy of 'Team Ted,' as Vatican insiders talk about the next pope.” Here a chunk of that, offering a transcript of part of that McCarrick address. References to “Bergoglio” refer, of course, to the cardinal who would become Pope Francis:

We sat down. This is a very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome. We talked about a number of things. He had a favor to ask me for [when I returned] back home in the United States.

But then [the influential Italian] said, ‘What about Bergoglio?’

And I was surprised at the question.

I said, ‘What about him?’

He said, ‘Does he have a chance?’

I said, ‘I don’t think so, because no one has mentioned his name. He hasn’t been in anyone’s mind. I don’t think it’s on anybody’s mind to vote for him.’

He said, ‘He could do it, you know.’

I said, ‘What could he do?’

He said, ‘[Bergoglio] could reform the Church. If we gave him five years, he could put us back on target.’

I said, ‘But, he’s 76.’

He said, ‘Yeah, five years. If we had five years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.’

Was McCarrick speaking the truth? And who was that “influential man in Rome”? Questions, questions, questions. There are a few that I would like to ask.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.