The present pope is not a "Peter of Rome." So was Malachy wrong? Or did we misread him? After all, there is still the "gap theory" that could explain that he DID hear from G-d. But let me examine...
The Case Against
Malachy wrote his alleged prophecies in the 12th century, but they were not published until the 1595. His prophecies for the period of 1143 to 1590 have an uncanny level of accuracy. But that accuracy drops off after 1595. How could he have been so amazingly accurate during 1143-1590 and so drastically less amazing for 1590-2013+? Unless of course someone rewrote his old ones? We don't know. The full text of his prophecies are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes , with an original photo and an analysis matching most popes.
Some of his post-1595 prophecies are vague and no one can quite link them up to the pope in question perfectly. None are provably false, and some people will allege maybe history just didn't record enough about that pope for us to find the link. But if G-d wanted us to rely on what Malachy said, would G-d not also provide a historical record to prove he was right so we could rely on him being right in the future?
If you reject the gap theory, then you'd conclude he was wrong about the last pope whom he said would be PETRUS ROMANUS, and unless this pope changes his name to Peter, he blew it on the last pope.
The Case For
At http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/feb2013/jovial215-3.htm , I talked about the "gap theory" and how Malachy never said that PETRUS ROMANUS was a bad guy, and that he would be a good pope that would lead the Church through troubled times.
While we may not be able to link up every prophecy with a historical fact about each pope from history, we do have enormous amounts of detail on the lives of the popes in more recent decades, and what he said about the last 3 popes has the kind of uncanny accuracy that his pre-1595 prophecies had.
Also, he said that after Pope "Gloria oliuĉ" (Benedict XVI), the Church would experience persecution. It is. The European Union is looking to press criminal charges connected with molestation and the banking scandal. How much further will that go?
So maybe we are in the gap period whose focus is more about persecution. Maybe the gap period exists because there will be some ambiguity in the future about who is the pope, or who is leading the people. Benedict XVI is not dead, and if Francis takes the Church in a different direction, who knows, there might be controversy about who is or should be in charge, though it seems Benedict does not have much stomache for a fight. Perhaps ambiguity is the reason for a gap in the predictions. And maybe we are a few popes away from Petrus Romanus.
SUMMARY
OK...which argument did you find more convincing? I tried to argue both sides here to provoke some thought. I would avoid relying too much on what he said, but since some of you have already convinced yourself he was it, I thought I'd try to promote several modes of thought and several possibilities as to how things could unfold so you don't get too locked into any one mode of thought based on something not-biblical to begin with.
In my opinion, since we did not get a "Petrus Romanus" this time, what he wrote may not be too worth worrying about unless that changes and we can put him aside and focus more on other clues.
Shalom, Joe