Leo XIV: An American Pope
Robert Francis Prevost has been elected to head the Catholic Church
NYT:
Robert Francis Prevost was elected the 267th pope of the Roman Catholic Church on Thursday and took the name Pope Leo XIV, becoming the first pope from the United States and defying the conventional wisdom before the conclave that any American would be a long shot to become pontiff.
A puff of white smoke from a chimney above the Sistine Chapel signaled that the cardinals sequestered inside for two days had elected a new leader the world’s 1.4 billion Roman Catholics. As pope, Leo XIV will confront difficult decisions about the church’s direction, chiefly whether to continue the agenda of his predecessor, Pope Francis, who championed greater inclusion and openness to change until his death last month, or forge a different path.
The cardinals reached their decision after being in conclave for a little more than 24 hours, and after several rounds of voting. The group of 133 cardinals, the most ever to gather in a conclave, included many who were appointed by Francis and some who did not know one another. That had made reaching a quick consensus a serious challenge, given the broad group of contenders and the splits among them about the future of the church.
Despite his American roots, Cardinal Prevost, a 69-year-old, Chicago-born polyglot, is viewed as a churchman who transcends borders. He served for two decades in Peru, where he became a bishop and a naturalized citizen, then rose to lead his international religious order. Until the death of Francis, he held one of the most influential Vatican posts, running the office that selects and manages bishops globally.
A member of the Order of St. Augustine, he resembles Francis in his commitment to the poor and migrants and to meeting people where they are. He told the Vatican’s official news website last year that “the bishop is not supposed to be a little prince sitting in his kingdom.”
He has spent much of his life outside the United States. Ordained in 1982 at age 27, he received a doctorate in canon law at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. In Peru, he was a missionary, parish priest, teacher and bishop. As the Augustinians’ leader, he visited orders around the world, and speaks Spanish and Italian.
Often described as reserved and discreet, he would depart stylistically from Francis as pope. Supporters believe he will most likely continue the consultative process started by Francis to invite lay people to meet with bishops.
It is unclear whether he will be as open to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics as Francis was. Although he has not said much recently, in a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media and popular culture fostered “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel.” He cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”
His predecessor was, of course, the first pope from the Americas. But having an American elected head of the church is extraordinary and, certainly, unexpected.
Writing on May 2, NYT Japan reporter Motoko Rich (“There’s Never Been a Pope From the U.S. Could This Cardinal Change That?“) speculated that it might happen.
For betting types, the conventional wisdom says not to put your money on a pope from the United States.
Yet one American some Vatican watchers say could scrape together enough votes is Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, 69, a Chicago-born polyglot who is viewed as a churchman who transcends borders.
[…]
As ideological camps tussle over whether to continue Pope Francis’ inclusive agenda or return to a conservative doctrinal path, supporters of Cardinal Prevost pitch him as a balanced alternative among the papabili, as likely candidates for the papacy are known.
The Rev. Michele Falcone, 46, a priest in the Order of St. Augustine previously led by Cardinal Prevost, described his mentor and friend as the “dignified middle of the road.”
The cardinal resembles Francis in his commitment to the poor and migrants and to meeting people where they are. He told the Vatican’s official news website last year that “the bishop is not supposed to be a little prince sitting in his kingdom.” Rather, he said, a church leader is “called authentically to be humble, to be close to the people he serves, to walk with them, to suffer with them.”
[…]
The cardinal understands that the center of the Roman Catholic Church “is not in the United States or the North Atlantic,” said Raúl E. Zegarra, assistant professor of Catholic theological studies at Harvard Divinity School.
Given Cardinal Prevost’s international experience, knowledge of the United States and work inside the Vatican hierarchy, said Marco Politi, a veteran Vatican analyst in Rome, “if he were not American, this would make him automatically a papabile, certainly.”
[…]
Supporters of the cardinal said they expected him to continue the consultative process started by Francis to invite lay people to meet with bishops.
“I know that Bob believes that everybody has a right and a duty to express themselves in the church,” said the Rev. Mark R. Francis, a former classmate of Cardinal Prevost who runs the American arm of the Clerics of St. Viator, a religious order.
He certainly seems to be from a conservative mold:
Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, Cardinal Prevost has expressed less welcoming views to L.G.B.T.Q. people.
In a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media and popular culture fostered “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel.” He cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”
As bishop in Chiclayo, a city in northwestern Peru, he opposed a government plan to add teachings on gender in schools. “The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist,” he told local news media.
And, on the issue that has most dogged the church in recent decades, he does not have clean hands:
While praised in Peru for supporting Venezuelan immigrants and visiting far-flung communities, the cardinal has drawn criticism over his dealings with priests accused of sexual abuse.
One woman in Chiclayo who said she and two other women were sexually abused by two priests as girls long before Cardinal Prevost was bishop accused him of mishandling an investigation and of not stopping one of the priests from celebrating Mass.
The diocese of Chiclayo said Cardinal Prevost opened an investigation that the Vatican closed. After a new bishop arrived, the investigation was reopened. Supporters of Cardinal Prevost say he is the target of a smear campaign by members of a Peruvian-based Catholic movement that Francis disbanded.
In Chicago, activists say his office did not warn a nearby Catholic school that a priest who church leaders determined had abused young boys for years was sheltered in a monastery nearby starting in 2000. As head of the Midwestern order of Augustinians at the time, Cardinal Prevost would have approved the priest’s move to the monastery.
Temperamentally, he seems a classic politician:
Friends of the cardinal say he speaks carefully.
Compared with Francis, his language is “more serene,” said the Rev. Alejandro Moral Antón, Cardinal Prevost’s successor as Augustinian leader.
Where Francis might immediately speak his mind, Cardinal Prevost “holds himself back a bit,” Father Moral Antón added.
As always, it’s hard to predict how someone will perform once they reach the highest ranks of their profession. Many a Supreme Court Justice performed differently once elevated than they had on the lower courts. Ditto popes and cardinals.
It’s noteworthy that, at 69, he’s relatively young for a newly-elected pope. Francis was 76 and Benedict XVI 78 when they assumed the post. One would presume a long tenure but, of course, one never knows. John Paul I was a mere 65 when he assumed the papacy and died a short 33 days later.
https://bsky.app/profile/laurentheisen.bsky.social/post/3loohifodpc2v
There’s a solid Chicago Pope joke right there.
https://bsky.app/profile/tef.bsky.social/post/3loogs5bgq22p
I didn’t expect an American pope, but he’s spent decades in South America, recieved schooling in Rome, has had many curial assignments, and was the head of the Augustinian Order.
He took the name of Leo XIV. The last Leo is known for his support for workers and opposition to communism. Leo XIII also had a strong devotion to Mary. Several Leos, including Leo I “the Great”, have been canonized.
@Beth: @Beth:
😀
@Fortune:
I’ve never heard of Pope Leo XIII’s opposition to communism as something he was known for; by that reading, he was known for his opposition to unfettered capitalism too.
I don’t seem to care.
While I didn’t listen to his entire opening address to the faithful (he seemed to be winding up with a blessing), I noticed that he spoke chiefly in Italian, but also in Spanish addressing his Peruvian congregation and in Latin (for some formal prayers), but not in English. It will be jarring to hear a Pope speak unaccented (well, Chicago accented) English.
@Beth: Having lived in the NW suburbs, this is 100% where my brain went. 😀
@Neil Hudelson: I’d recommend Rerum Novarum for the full picture, but if you want to hear him go papal on the communists you should read Quod Apostolici Muneris.
Now when do they release “An American Werewolf in Rome”?
American Pope = converging vectors of ideology and our political zeitgeist with many points of conflict to test the American Catholic membership. Going to be interesting.
Hope Pope Leo IV has the resolve to resist pressure from the monied Catholic conservatives invested in their own version of Dominionism.
@Fortune: There you go with your “commie” manifestation again. The world has moved on except for the agitiprop nonsense.
@Rob1: I’m talking about a historical figure from the late 1800’s, so there’s no way to avoid the subject of communism.
@Michael Reynolds:
Nor do I. But it seems to be a big deal from a news standpoint. It’s the headline everywhere.
The MAGAs are lamenting the choice of Prevost. He’s progressive, you know.
The big questions:
What are his politics?
How good is he at sheltering sexual predators from consequences?
@Fortune:
You are both correct, Pope Leo spent 20 years(!) living in Peru’s poorest enclave. He has spent many a day amongst Peru’s poor huddled masses so he is not exactly rah, rah, sis-boom bah when it comes to the obscene amount of capital accumulated by many individuals around the globe.
@CSK:
MAGA’s afraid the pope might be a Christian.
American Bishop Robert Barron, who was appointed last week by President Trump to the new White House commission on religious liberty, telling CBS last week what he was hearing from cardinals pre-conclave:
The pope does not run the world religiously, but point taken, prelate.
@Fortune:
@Neil Hudelson:
Amusingly enough, Leo XIII was also noted for following Pius IX in condemning “Americanism”.
That is, that Catholics should accomodate themselves to secular superiority, and accept the separation of Church and State.
The main context of Pius IX and Leo XIII was their objections to the either “secularist” or Protestant tendencies of European states, including the Italian “liberal monarchy”, the French reepublican liberals (including republican conservatives, lol), the German Empire etc.
At the time their only real political allies were the rather reactionary Catholic Monarchists in France, the “non adherents” in Italy, and other rather marginal groups.
And above all, the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The context was the “anti-clericalism”, based on opposition to the Catholic Church as a established and privileged power in the state.
Also, the continued Papal grump about the loss of the Papal State to the Italian state under the Savoyard monarchy.
Which naturally annoyed Italian patriots, including ones who considered themselves good Catholics, who considered the Papacy inclined to favour Austrian domination.
@JohnSF: That’s roughly correct, although it more revolved around a concern the Catholic Church in the US was becoming a national church. I think if Prevost were trying to signal a distance between himself and American influence he would have chosen the name Pius.
@Michael Reynolds: Yeah, that could be inconvenient alright. Fortunately, with him being Catholic and all, it’s not likely to impact them even if he is.
@DK:
And a prophet receives his calling. By accident. Seems right, somehow.
@DK:
And a prophet receives his calling. By accident. Seems right, somehow.
@Fortune:
Okay, I’ll bite. Which would you prefer, a “Leo” or a “Pius?”
Or, would you prefer to duck the question with “I’m not Catholic, it’s not for me to say.”
@just nutha: I’m Catholic, and it doesn’t matter to me. I’m not ducking the question either, it really doesn’t matter to me. Why would it? How would it?
And what do you mean “I’ll bite”? JohnSF brought up an issue which could explain the name Leo, and I thought it probably didn’t. I wasn’t arguing on behalf of either name.
@Fortune:
I don’t think “antiAmericanism” eaplains “Leo”.
But the difference between Pius IX and Leo XIII was that Pius had focused on the traditional allies of the Churxh: the old aristocracies, the remnents of ancien regime monarchists, Austria-Hungary.
Leo XIII was attempting to broaden the basis of political alliances and appeal by condemning the exploitation of lower classes uinrthe “middle class” dominated liberal republics and monarchies.
See the rise of the Zentrum in the Catholic regions of Imperial Germany, and various Catholic “peoples parties” and “Catholic Social” parties in other countries.
It was the post-war fusion of those with the reformist right liberals, and the destruction of the monarchist reactionaries as a political force, that led to the ascendancy of the Christian Democrats as the main “conservative” alignment in much of western Europe.
The implications are that Prevost as-was is indicating a “popular” (not populist) inclination that is contrary to the “more Catholic than the Pope” ultras common among the US “conservative” Catholics, who from a European perspective have wholly embraced an odd hybrid of capitalist liberalism and rather authoritarian elitism.
A sort of 1900’s American Plutocracy in dressed up in Catholic robes.
@Fortune: You seemed to be implying that choosing the name “Pius” would send a different message, represent a different worldview, than “Leo” does. Being raised non-conforming, the nuance you were trying to communicate was lost on me, and I (mistakenly, it turns out) thought you favored one approach over the other, but didn’t know which. “I’ll bite” signaled my attempt to lure you into a more definitive commitment to the thought you were hinting at.
Wrong all around. But you really aren’t anywhere near as lucid a communicator as you imagine. [sigh]
ETA: @ John SF: Thanks. That was enlightening.
I’ll bet some of this guy’s votes came from cardinals who wanted an American anti-Trump. Trump, like Sauron, does not share power. He’ll hate the idea of a voice he can’t attack.
@Fortune:
Apparent there’s no way for you to avoid the subject of communism, unfortunately for relevant discourse.
@Michael Reynolds:
The Canadians and Australians voted for anti-Trumps, too. I choose to see this as a comforting trend.
@Michael Reynolds: @CSK: I don’t tend to keep up with church politics but there are well over a billion Catholics in the world and 70-odd million in the US. The pope is a powerful force.
@JohnSF:
I don’t think that was the point he was making. Or rather it seems like he was saying that anti-Americanism could have led towards choosing Pius.
BTW as someone raised Lutheran, I have appreciated the discussion between Fortune and you (JohnSF) as I really don’t have a lot of grounding in Catholic Church history or politics.
@Matt Bernius:
I was thinking of the very specific and ironic (in this context) use by the Catholic church of “anti-Americanism”.
Which was not being anti the United States of America per se or even dislike of American culture.
(Though some of the proponents undoubtedly despised both)
But more narrowly, a condemnation of the “state accommodationist” liberal in US Catholics, who argued that it was pointless to import European attitudes and assumptions about church/state relations into a US context.
The “Americanists” thought such habits merely entrenched anti-Catholic prejudice, and reinforced the tendency they disliked of Catholic congregations and clergy to exist in ethnic “silos”.
The Vatican won the battles; but ironically in the longer run, the “Americanists” won the war, because the entire Church has “Americanised” since 1945.
(And even more ironically, with the elite Republican Catholics perhaps among the remaining least “Americanist” factions)
@Rob1:
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris.html
Relevant?
A detailed piece on the history of Leo XIV, lots of links:
“Link”
@charontwo: If it was so clear Francis was grooming Prevost, why wasn’t anyone predicting he’d be chosen?
Also, Francis never approved of blessing same-sex unions. He approved of blessing people, just as priests have always done. It’s hard to take Signorile seriously if he doesn’t understand the distinction.
@Fortune:
Relevant indeed, but not exactly how you might think.
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
Communism in that period c. 1848 to 1917 was branch of socialism that adhered to Marxism.
And after 1917 to Bolshevik Marxism-Leninism.
There were socialists before Marx, and non-Communist socialists after.
See eg the British Labour Party.
You might also note his refrences to “secret societies” ie Fremasons, and to “(the) licentious sort of liberty was attributed to man by a set of men who gloried in the name of philosophers” which is a pretty obvious refrenece to “liberalism” in general.
And remember, at the time the US (along with the French Republic) was regarded as the exemplar of a “liberal” polity.
You might also note in section 9) the refrences, albeit oblique, to the new “Catholic social” movement:
“Catholic wisdom … provides with especial care for public and private tranquility in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use.”
And other refrences, which if you know the details of European politics of the time, are also obvious, if diplomatically indirect, refrences to the “anti-clerical” policies of the Third Republic, the Second Reich, and the Italian unification monarchy.
@JohnSF:
To clarify:
Leo XIII was indeed condemning “socialism”, but not “communism”, because he was unable to distinguish the two.
Not entirely surprising, but still a little disappointing.
And also still antagonistic to “liberalism” is the basis of the US
(The anti-Catholic prejudices of many American traditionalists in that period were not entirely without foundation,)
The pre-1945 Vatican always tended to operate in a bubble of of its own concerns.
@JohnSF: The socialists, communists, and nihilists defiled the flesh, despised dominion, and blasphemed majesty, and still do, so I can’t fault Leo XIII too much. Overall I think you’re looking more at geopolitics, and I’m looking more at philosophy and theology.
@Fortune:
No it is not.
– Written over 150 years ago, and 2 centuries distant.
– Popes are human, fallible and subject to their own cultural programming in degrees more or less depending upon their personality.
– Stereotypes, generalizations, fear-of-other baiting are just that regardless of the source
– Communism, as represented in the current hostile discourse is a non event. It is not a threat. Greed and the rightwing assault on democratic institutions and our capacity to cooperatively solve our problems through negotiation, compromise and scientific method, is our most pressing threat. Retro commie agitiprop is a deliberate distraction. Unfortunately, our corporate memory of real communism is fading, and the younger set is vulnerable to being spoon fed your nonsense.
The Right’s continued reliance on the commie smear is disingenuous, lazy, and plain silly.
And the manner by which you engage here, with cut-and-paste reference, for which you offer little or no supporting argument nor expansion, is also lazy and insubstantial.
@Fortune:
That would have come as a bit of a surprise to all the Methodists who were prominent in organising the Labour Party, which has described as “owing more to Methodism than to Marx”
Also to Charles Kinsley, John Ruskin, William Morris and others in the Brisish Christian Socialist movement.
I’m looking at the political history, but also the related history of theological and philosophical views.
They cannot easily be separated, in pracrice.