It will be a pontificate that looks to the peripheries of the faith, as Pope Francis did [...]]]> It’s perhaps a little too much to say that Leo XIV’s pontificate began on the Iberian Peninsula, but his recent six-day sojourn in Spain was a clear sign of the kind of pontificate to expect from him.

It will be a pontificate that looks to the peripheries of the faith, as Pope Francis did throughout his own. The difference lies in how we understand these peripheries.

During his twelve-year reign, Pope Francis carefully avoided countries with the most ancient Christian traditions. He never made an apostolic visit to France, preferring to go to Strasbourg in 2014 without even stopping by the cathedral, which was celebrating its thousandth anniversary, and then making a last-ditch effort to visit Corsica without passing through Paris.

Spain, too, had not been a favorite destination for the pope. The only plan that could materialize was a stop in the Canary Islands during his final (never-fulfilled) journey to Argentina, to provide relief to migrants stranded on the Atlantic islands. A stop in Madrid was, in any case, out of the question, much less Barcelona, even though he was expected in Manresa to celebrate the feast of Saint Ignatius of Loyola.

In Europe, Pope Francis had sought out countries where the Catholic tradition was a minority, with a few exceptions: Lithuania, included in a Baltic tour that saw him visit Protestant Latvia and agnostic Estonia; and Poland, a mandatory stop for World Youth Day. Otherwise, Francis mostly visited countries with non-Catholic majorities, both in Europe and around the world.

Leo XIV has turned that on its head.

The first countries he has chosen to visit in Europe on his international travels are those with a solid Catholic history. Monaco, first and foremost, is also a sign of concern for small countries, demonstrating that the Holy See looks to all states, and that indeed all states have an impact on the Society of Nations.

There was the recent trip to Spain. Soon he will go to San Marino, technically an “international” voyage even though it will not take him off the Italian peninsula, a journey similar to the one that brought him to Monaco. Then, he will be in France, where he will not only visit the reopened Notre Dame but will also travel as far as Metz, in those border territories where the Napoleonic Concordat is still in force.

Everything suggests that for Leo XIV, the new evangelization is the primary theme.

These are all places previously considered the center of faith, with France often called la fille aînée de l’église – the “eldest daughter of the Church” – each with an an ancient Catholicism of late caught in fascination with advanced secularism.

These are peculiar peripheries, though. In France, especially, there has been a return of faith inexplicable to everyone, which has led to an increase in adult baptisms over the last five years.

Leo XIV thus made his task clear: to confirm in the faith. And where to confirm if not from the nations that have maintained a Christian identity and heritage, but seem to have lost it?

The trip to Spain was a clear example of this. The pope’s presence reawakened faith like no one would have imagined. The 1.2 million people gathered in Plaza Cibeles in Madrid spoke volumes about the country’s profound Catholicism better than any speech.

The emotion of the people of Barcelona at the blessing of the Tower of Jesus of the Sagrada Familia was tangible. Also in Barcelona, the pope visited the monastery of Montserrat, where the inscription reads: “Catalonia will be Christian or it will not be.”

The presence of a pope was needed to remind the Spanish people of their faith.

Leo XIV was at the Cortes, the Spanish parliament, where he read a monumental speech before all members of parliament. Even members from the populist Podemos Party showed up at the chamber, though having strongly criticized the decision to invite the pope in the first place.

In a powerful speech, the pope spoke out against populism and nationalism, but also against abortion and for human life, addressing critical issues facing all political factions, without exception.

Above all, the pope reminded Spain of the cultural legacy the nation has given the world, beginning with the School of Salamanca, the thought of the brilliant Dominicans who studied the rights of the peoples of the New World, laying the foundations for what would become human rights.

In his speech to the diplomatic corps, Leo XIV recalled two other Spanish saints, Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Avila, urging them to build the State according to Christian principles, maintaining a healthy secularism, and at the same time not excluding religion from public life.

The speech to the Cortes drew a full eight minutes of applause, an enormous amount in a chamber with a socialist and generally anticlerical majority.

But that’s what the pope’s presence is for.

It serves to remind us that when we appeal to certain fundamental principles, we do so starting from a thought, that of the Church, which remains at the root of all reasoning. It serves to remind people of their Christianity, somewhat dormant because it lacks the necessary shock that only the pope’s presence can provide.

This is what the pope’s presence is for: to make faith alive and present, to bring it out of the catacombs of thought, to restore Christ to the center even on the peripheries of faith.

The trip to France will likely be met with the same enthusiasm, but one can imagine the pope also visiting England, Germany, perhaps Austria, and Croatia in the coming years, in an ideal tour to the heart of the European faith, from which to relaunch the great European discourse.

In Spain, there will be a before-and-after the pope’s trip. But there will likely be a before-and-after during his pontificate as well. Because Leo XIV unveiled his major themes and highlighted his objectives. And he did so in a journey marked by joy and emotion, both on the part of the pope and of those who attended.

We need the pope to confirm us in the faith.

It’s a simple truth and a primary purpose of the Petrine office in the Church, after all, and Leo XIV just leaned way into it.

It also offers a glimpse, perhaps, into a possible further reform of the Roman Curia.

Until now, Leo XIV [...]]]> The appointment of Montse Alvarado as prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Communications is an appointment that explains much about how Leo XIV intends to manage the Roman Curia and his understanding of its offices.

It also offers a glimpse, perhaps, into a possible further reform of the Roman Curia.

Until now, Leo XIV has made rather institutional Curia appointments, choosing profiles with little media exposure, but functional and hardworking, all of whom were, moreover, drawn from the conservative world.

Certainly, the small reform on the suspension of religious superiors in dioceses seemed to strengthen the power of the only woman prefect, Sister Simona Brambilla. However, the retention of a woman in a prefect’s role, along with that of Sister Raffaella Petrini as president of the Vatican governorate, seemed an exception within a Roman Curia firmly in the hands of men.

Montse Alvarado’s appointment, therefore, seems to break the mold, or at least the mold we’ve grown accustomed to under Leo XIV. And yet, it’s only a surprising appointment up to a point.

Cloaked in typically American pragmatism, Leo XIV seemingly views the Vatican communications department not so much as a Curia body, but rather as a sort of “media relations,” a sort of interface between the Pope and the world. He met with the outgoing prefect, Paolo Ruffini, only once, but without developing a true communications strategy with him.

In Ruffini’s place, Leo XIV appointed a prominent figure in the American Catholic media landscape, until now Chief Operating Officer of EWTN News, the news branch of Mother Angelica’s television station, which during the pontificate of Pope Francis was considered by the pontiff himself to be a “work of the devil.”

The point, however, was simple: the Pope brought an experienced manager to the Vatican, and at the same time extended a hand to the American conservative world, with all its donors, borrowing crucial experience to try to make the Vatican communications machine work.

The profile is not that of a journalist, but that of a manager who spent three years at the head of the largest Catholic media company in the world, and who therefore not only brings specific experience, but also brings to the pontificate the weight of millions of faithful who gather every day on EWTN.

This is a masterstroke by Leo XIV, demonstrating that he views Vatican communications as an asset, and does not intend to turn it into a liability, with all that this entails. And, likely, further reform of the communications department is being considered, at least regarding the distribution of offices.

In attempting to consolidate everything, the Dicastery for Communication found itself managing a monster that encompasses all Vatican media outlets, the publishing house, but also the Holy See Press Office and the Vatican Publishing House, as well as the Printing House and the Photographic Service.

This makes the communications dicastery the body with the biggest budget in the Roman Curia.

In a possible reorganization, the printing house, the Vatican Publishing House, and the Photographic Service would be included in the Governorate’s budget, under the heading of “commercial services.”

The Dicastery for Communication would resume its pastoral role, and media management could be handled more managerially, with autonomy that would also allow for specific donations.

The Holy See Press Office could also soon have a new director, and at that point it will be clear whether the Pope wants to place the Press Office directly under the Secretariat of State, with improved coordination of communications, or maintain the communications reform as it stands.

These are the major issues Alvarado will have to contend with, inheriting an organization suffering from a sudden and, in some cases, imposed bureaucratization.

Vatican communications, in fact, has always functioned not by virtue of its organization, but by the coordination between the men who headed the various dicasteries (sometimes combining multiple positions, like Father Federico Lombardi, at one time director of the Holy See Press Office, Vatican Radio, and the Vatican Television Center) and by a non-bureaucratic, yet well-structured, information system faithful to the institution.

Leo XIV also demonstrates, however, that he gives each dicastery a different specific weight. Indeed, the reform of the Curia still needs to be refined, and who knows whether Leo XIV’s approach will become the norm for other dicasteries that don’t necessarily require an archbishop or cardinal at their head, because they don’t need to be in collegiality with the Pope.

This decision by the Pope demonstrates, however, that it is very difficult to define situations within the Vatican by polarizing opinions. Until now, EWTN had been portrayed as the anti-Papacy channel due to some critical comments on Francis’s pontificate in the midst a whole bunch of operation mostly dedicated to devotion, news from the Catholic world, Catholic life.

Yet, the quality of its agencies’ reporting, as well as its TV broadcasts and the work of its affiliates, has always maintained a healthy balance and strict journalistic standards, which Alvarado supported and fostered during her time as COO at EWTN.

Today, this balance is widely recognized by sectors of the “Catholic left” who, while acknowledging an intellectual honesty despite the diversity of views, did not hesitate in the past to attack EWTN for certain positions, sometimes simply not accepting the criticism.

The author of this column must admit, however, that there is a bias in this communication, having been a contributor to EWTN for 13 years, and has nevertheless been able to express himself freely on all topics, without sparing critical views, but also without censorship.

The narrative shift was favored by Leo XIV, himself a Pope who proved allergic to polarization, while one of Alvarado’s sponsors is said to have been Cardinal Michael Czerny, who in fact entrusted EWTN with the production of the promotional video for the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. And Czerny certainly cannot be seen as a champion of the anti-Pope Francis world.

If nothing else, Leo XIV demonstrated with this decision that the time for polarization in the Church is over.

In this way, too, the Pope is working for the unity of the Church. While reports focus on the need to make Vatican communications effective—sometimes underestimating the number of professionals working in Vatican media—Alvarado’s appointment says much more.

It says that the time for ideological conflict is over, that the Pope wants effective communication and will perhaps further reform the Curia to separate public relations, commerce, and government, and that even the Roman Curia must now be understood in a new way.

The encyclical was the last to arrive at the Office of Latin Letters; the original version is expected to be in English and Italian, so the editio typica will likely be Latin, but it will be [...]]]> Leo XIV’s encyclical letter, Magnifica Humanitas, has a Latin title, but it doesn’t yet have a Latin version.

The encyclical was the last to arrive at the Office of Latin Letters; the original version is expected to be in English and Italian, so the editio typica will likely be Latin, but it will be the Latin translated retroactively.

According to InfoVaticana, the first portal to note this peculiarity or at least to give it importance, the lack of a Latin edition testifies to the Church’s abandonment of Latin, and therefore a loss of identity.

Symbolically, in fact, there is some particular weight attached to the document’s release in vernacular languages before there was even a Latin edition prepared.

This detail says something about the transition the Church is currently experiencing, but it says very little about the Catholic Church’s loss of identity.

Indeed, Latin was reaffirmed as the official language of the Church in the last general regulations of the Roman Curia issued in November 2025. Indeed, the original editions of the latest encyclicals, the so-called reference editions, have long been in Latin, but are in common languages.

Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’ had an initial version in Spanish. Other encyclicals were conceived in Italian. Magnifica Humanitas is likely based on English, because it was drafted by the office headed by Canadian Cardinal Michael Czerny, who also spoke in English at the presentation press conference, and because it was handed over to the Pope, who is American and obviously has more ease with his native tongue than with any other.

In short, the original edition has not been the Latin edition for some time.

The question, however, is why the Latin edition has not yet been drafted and published. The reason is simple: the Office of Latin Letters was the last to receive the complete text of the encyclical.

Like all papal documents, the encyclical was strictly confidential until publication.

For this reason, the Dicastery for Integral Human Development gathered the opinions of various experts and compiled them into a lengthy text that summarized all the themes of the social doctrine. In some cases, the dicastery entrusted sections of the translation to trusted collaborators, but never the entire text.

In short, there was fear of a possible leak, which led the drafters to keep the document virtually under lock and key, preventing anyone from gaining a comprehensive view of it. Furthermore, the document did not involve all the relevant ministries, but only a few experts selected by the drafters.

Magnifica Humanitas is a document by experts, but not a collegial document of the Roman Curia.

The lack of coordination is evident in several details. For example, the complete absence of any mention of the Rome Call for AI Ethics, nor of the concept of algorithmics, developed within the same initiative. This was an initiative of the Pontifical Academy for Life that brought together Big Tech companies to advance the ethical development of artificial intelligence. The project was later endorsed by other religious organizations, becoming an interfaith initiative.

Not only that.

Such a lengthy document also lacks references to other crucial texts, and even recent speeches by Vatican diplomats on the issue of artificial intelligence and its governance. For example, there is no reference to the idea of a global authority on artificial intelligence to oversee its development and ethical implications, as proposed by Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher in a speech to the United Nations in September 2023.

The encyclical has indeed gathered the opinions of several experts, but it has virtually cut ties with every other Vatican initiative undertaken before it.

There’s the encyclical, there’s the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (which is expected to lead the new inter-departmental commission on AI established by Leo XIV), and there’s a future that no longer concerns the relationships already established with Big Tech, but with other companies like Anthropic, which, among other things, is appreciated for refusing to release its technology for military purposes.

These shortcomings reveal a Roman Curia in which department remains a silo, without coordination and (paradoxically) without a history.

The memory of the work accomplished in the Curia seems to have been erased, replaced by new expressions. It’s true that the encyclical contains a substantial section summarizing previous encyclicals on social doctrine. But this is merely didactic and fails to truly highlight the concrete consequences of that work on social doctrine.

Indeed, the document Antiqua et Nova of the Dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith and for Culture and Education, dedicated precisely to the theme of artificial intelligence, appears for the first time in note 123.

What does this situation tell us?

For one thing, it means the Curia inherited by Leo XIV is still deeply divided.

There are free agents who are eager to exploit their freedom to bring documents and pronouncements to their own devices, severing ties with the past. There are departments that still live by the prejudices of Pope Francis’s time and are therefore excluded from discussions. There is also a Secretariat of State that appears to be an interested and vaguely involved spectator. The symbolic moment that explained this situation was when Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, was called upon to moderate the presentation of the encyclical itself, in the presence of the pope.

All the opinions arrived disjointed and were then integrated into a lengthy text that encompasses a wealth of topics. It’s a particularly long encyclical, three times longer than Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate, and it doesn’t offer many innovations, although at times it risks succumbing to too much rhetoric.

In this situation, Latin—which no one in the know speaks anymore—has become the least of anyone’s worries.

Simply put, the institution and its language have become the last problem, because the ministries themselves are more engaged in this tug-of-war over responsibilities than in defending the structure as it is.

It’s not a plan, even if it seems like one.

The loss of institutionality and the management of power based on confidentiality makes us lose sight of the fact that everyone works for a larger world, with its own language and protocol.

Of late, these banalities been overlooked. They are humdrum facts of Vatican life, but folks lost sight of them some time ago.

Suffice it to recall that the announcement of Pope Francis’s death was made in a YouTube message by three cardinals and an archbishop, among whom was neither the Dean of the College of Cardinals nor the Pope’s Vicar for the Diocese of Rome (who are supposed to deliver the message), and among whom was no one wearing the red piping instead of the clergyman.

Latin will come, and it will be the editio typica.

Magnifica Humanitas, however, has shown that the pope will have his work cut out for him to bring the entire Curia to work together, to overcome personalisms, to create a peaceful mechanism where everyone can exchange information and benefit from each other’s work.

Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical – a social encyclical – should have clarified whether a transition between the old and the new world truly took place. The impression, arising from several clues, is not only that the transition is yet incomplete, but that it has yet to begin.

What do we know so [...]]]>

Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical – a social encyclical – should have clarified whether a transition between the old and the new world truly took place. The impression, arising from several clues, is not only that the transition is yet incomplete, but that it has yet to begin.

What do we know so far from Magnifica Humanitas, Leo XIV’s first encyclical?

We know that the first social encyclical in history, written by another Leo, Leo XIII, was signed on May 15, the anniversary of Rerum novarum.

We know that this encyclical has as its subtitle “On the Safeguarding of the Human Person in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.”

We know it is to be presented by Cardinal Michael Czerny, who appears to have played a very significant role in the encyclical, and by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as by Christopher Olah, one of the co-founders of AI giant Anthropic.

We know this is a social encyclical.

Then we have the leaks, the unofficial information, which helps us understand how the encyclical will be structured. We know that the Italian edition will be long: 231 pages in volume, divided into five chapters and a conclusion, and covering 245 points.

And then we have expectations, fueled by rumors. It’s a social encyclical that takes a broad view of the entire theme of social doctrine, retraces it, seeks to trace continuity with history, and identifies a discontinuity within it. And this discontinuity was born precisely from the explosion of artificial intelligence.

The Holy See has never demonized technology, and it won’t do so now. But it has always maintained clear principles of social doctrine, from subsidiarity to solidarity, which certainly must be part of a world in which private companies are becoming more important than states, and personal profit risks being detrimental to the common good. That, too, is a crucial tenet of the Church’s social doctrine.

It’s easy to expect the encyclical to contain these specific references. It’s also easy to imagine that the theme of multilateralism, or the shared responsibility of states to contribute to the common good, will also be present. The Holy See has been pursuing, for years, a reform of the United Nations that is truly representative of all nations. Leo XIV, and with him the Holy See, has addressed the crisis of multilateralism in several speeches. Really, all the social teachings of the popes bear witness to this.

If these are likely to be the themes of the encyclical, one wonders how it is destined to have a real impact or contribute something new.

On the one hand, it is fair to note that popes should not introduce novelties at all but rather ensure continuity. True, but the continuity should create space for an innovative contribution, a new thought that, among other things, Leo XIV called for during his trip to Africa and that Cardinal Pietro Parolin evoked in celebrating the 325th anniversary of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, the school of the pope’s ambassadors.

It is here, however, that we see how the transition from the old to the new world has not yet begun.

The encyclical is presented by two of the cardinals who most closely represent Pope Francis’s thinking, albeit in different ways. Czerny brought to the Vatican a particular sensitivity to migrants, combined with a love of popular movements and a closeness to the most politically progressive voices.  A Jesuit, naturally curious about the secular world, Czerny was Pope Francis’s right-hand man in managing a dicastery that had traditionally been, above all, intellectually vibrant, like the old Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Fernandez was Francis’s man, the first promoted by the pope and the last great friend to arrive in the Curia, even presented with an autographed letter from Pope Francis that highlighted what he was expected to do as “Guardian of the Faith.”

Leo XIV, in short, has relied on the Old Guard, and that could indicate either the persistent lack of a true generational change in the Vatican, or that Leo has yet to look to the future and therefore must rely on the past.

The risk is that an encyclical that should be a generational transition is actually still rooted not in the history of the Church, but in a particular pontificate.

And yes, I dare hope that the encyclical also touches on the issues of digital identity studied by Justice and Peace in the mid-1990s, or that it goes back in time to consider two documents on the 1986 global economic crisis from the same pontifical council. And again, I’d like to hope that it will be noted that in 1986, the UN declaration on the right to development called for the defense of integral human development, thus betraying the presence of a Catholic negotiator (from the Holy See? Who knows…) who had been quite successful.

The big problem, however, is that this historical perspective has been largely missing from Francis’s pontificate and risks being absent even in the first encyclical of this pontificate. It is a particularly long encyclical, and everything suggests it will be composed of countless quotations, attempting to provide continuity

Much will be interesting, but nothing will be new.

Thus, the first major act of Leo XIV’s pontificate risks being merely a declaration of intent, demonstrating, however, that Leo XIV is a pope of a new generation but still somewhat in the shadow of the old. This is an interesting fact, considering that, in his recently published Augustinian writings, Leo XIV’s thought appears in line with the history of the Church, but also personal, and in its own way innovative in its approach.

The big question is whether this encyclical will mark the end of an era or the continuation of one.

But there is a positive aspect. Since it is a very long text, everyone can read it and take from it what they see fit. Obviously, there will be manipulation on both sides. But it will also offer the opportunity to delve deeper into the Church’s thinking. Leo XIV obviously approves of the text and will even present it personally.

But one wonders whether this is a compromise text or the text Leo XIV really had in mind when he began the project.

We may be waiting for something further in the future to mark a real generational shift in thinking.

Deep down, Leo [...]]]> When he first appeared on the central loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica dressed as Pope, Leo XIV immediately declared himself “a son of St. Augustine.” It was a statement of identity, powerfull and immediate, which quickly showed itself indeed to be a fundamental characteristic for understanding this pontiff and his pontificate.

Deep down, Leo XIV remains a friar. He loves community life, from which he seeks to draw as much nourishment as possible. He is a great listener. He views government as a service. He seeks meaning – the divine sense – in the events of the world on pilgrimage in history and in the vicissitudes of life every day.
For all that, Leo XIV remains a mystery to many, even after a year in the papal office.

The Pope has not implemented any revolutions. He has demonstrated great continuity with Pope Francis, but also differences in approach on certain issues. He has reformed some minor matters and even appointed some key figures (the new deputy of the Secretariat of State; his successor as prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops). In reality, however, he has neither closed old processes nor initiated new ones.

The synodal process continues on its bumpy path, publishing its working group reports and releasing other statements, and it is anything but clear to what extent Leo XIV appreciates them. In Germany, the more ideological German bishops continue their synodal journey, even going so far as to disregard the Pope’s own declarations. The traditionalist world of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X has already announced that it will ordain new bishops, even without a papal mandate.

In short, the polarizations within the Church, which had intensified in the face of Pope Francis’s personalist and sometimes harsh style of governance, have not yet been resolved. Some hot-button issues remain and will continue to do so. The problem, however, is likely different. The problem is that Leo XIV’s priorities are different. And they reside precisely in the Augustinian charism.

For that reason, a year after his election, it’s not enough to simply take stock of his 365 days at the helm of the Church. Rather, we need to delve into the Pope’s Augustinian soul. A book, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, entitled “Free Under Grace,” collects all the speeches of Robert Francis Prevost OSA from his two terms as head of the Augustinians. The book, for now, is only in Italian, so what follows is my English translation of the texts.

The book outlines Leo’s spirituality but also says something about his approach to governing.

First of all, spirituality. Leo XIV deeply felt the meaning of his priestly vocation. In one of his speeches, he spoke about vows. For example, he addressed the topic of the vow of chastity, which—he said—has “great significance in today’s world. It does not deny our humanity. It calls us to discover the depth and richness of human love.By freely renouncing the possibility of entering into the exclusive relationship of marriage, we remind ourselves and others that there exists a union of love and self-giving even more profound than that expressed in the intimate bond of marriage.”

In all the texts, the reference to God is central, to the need to look to God. But the reference to the Church is also central, because, says Prevost, the Augustinian is a profoundly ecclesial man.

“The Church,” Prevost writes in an article, “is contested and even considered a stumbling block. Being authentically Church and thinking with the Church is still a real and necessary challenge today.”

But the then-general of the Augustinians also questioned what it meant to transmit the faith, he was aware that “young people do not reject theological discourse”, but rather that they have “alienation, incomprehension, distance” towards it.

Yet, Prevost knows the weight of institutions and symbols. “What religious dress or certain external forms of prayer represented for one generation,” he writes, ” no longer holds that meaning for young people today. However, without these signs, it will be difficult to appreciate the meaning of the sacred in our lives.”

Everything, however, began with personal responsibility. “As religious,” wrote the man who would become Pope, “we are called to evangelize by starting from who we are, rather than from what we do.” And again: “Finding God in the world around us is ideally one of our great challenges.” And finally: “A culture in crisis is necessarily a culture in search. Christians are called to be professionals in the search for human meaning.”

These excerpts come from speeches given in various circumstances, in many parts of the world, on different occasions. However, they have their own coherence, offering a profile of Robert Francis Prevost the man. He does not fail to use quotations from popular culture, reveals himself to be a connoisseur of the theatrical and musical scene, and does not fail to use his familiarity with pop culture in an attempt at inculturation that nevertheless aims to never diminish faith.

His evolution over the thirteen-year stretch between 2001 and 2014 is striking. His early speeches are more naive, more direct in his governing style, more practical, and more inclined to the idea that a concrete path must be established. Over time, Prevost becomes less blunt in expressing concepts, more willing to consider the broader context. But this evolution in governance, which is almost a softening due to greater familiarity with the role, goes hand in hand with the changes in the society around him.

Prevost became general shortly after September 11, 2001, and his initial speeches spoke of a world that, despite everything, still perceived itself as Christian. But, over time, the language shifted to that of a world in crisis, to which Prevost responded by intensifying his search for meaning, looking back at the history of the Augustinian Order, taking the example of saints and martyrs, and exploring spirituality.

All this gives us today a Pope who has made the centrality of Christ his primary goal of governance.

He is a Pope who understands the weight of symbols and who will therefore use them when necessary. After all, he immediately resumed wearing the red mozzetta that Pope Francis had always rejected and returned to live quietly in the Vatican Apostolic Palace.

It also gives us a Pope who leads a regular life, seeks balance, and lives as a friar as far as he can, convinced of his vocation and eager to celebrate Mass whenever possible.

He is a pope who learned to govern as the general of a religious order spread throughout the world, who has traveled the world and knows the concrete situations. And he is therefore a pope who does not make hasty or unjustly harsh decisions but rather seeks balance.

This will not lead to sudden major upheavals. There will be no unexpected appointments in the Curia, but targeted appointments, starting with the five new heads of dicasteries to be chosen this year (the prefects of Laity, Family and Life; Integral Human Development; Divine Worship; Christian Unity; and Causes of Saints are over 75).

There will be no improvised reforms, but deliberate decisions after careful consideration. There will be greater episcopal collegiality because the model includes everyone in the decision-making process, recognizing that power is, above all, a service.

And there will be more and more references to the City of God, which is a kind of guiding principle of this pontificate. The City of God, which asks everyone to strive for the things above, because that is where we belong. Indeed, The City of God seems to be Leo XIV’s first and true diplomatic theorem.

If 14 years of Augustinian leadership changed the man who has become the pope, and we may surmise – even hope – that he will become more Augustinian as he continues to serve as pontiff and becomes increasingly familiar with his role as head of the universal Church.

Ultimately, we are not faced with a pope crystallized in a specific position, but with a pope who can grow in his governance while continuing to grow in faith.

The pontiff’s comments to journalists en route with him to Rome from Africa illustrate the point.

Leo took a question regarding Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s [...]]]> The great goal of Leo XIV’s pontificate is to restore unity in the Church. The task, however, is particularly arduous. In short, it is something easier said than done.

The pontiff’s comments to journalists en route with him to Rome from Africa illustrate the point.

Leo took a question regarding Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s decision to formally bless same-sex couples, and his answer drew many different reactions both within Germany and from around the world, but the one that came from the head of the German hierarchy’s effective institution is instructive.

Bishop Georg Bätzing of Limburg, who is finishing his term as president of the German Bishops’ Conference, simply stated that he will continue with this pastoral practice because he does not believe it creates disunity in the Church.

That may be a parting shot from a fellow who is on his way out and doesn’t much care, or it may be Bätzing basically daring the pope to stop him.

We’ll see.

There is another challenge to unity looming, one that comes from the Traditionalist world.

The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) is preparing to celebrate its first episcopal ordinations since 1988.

The ordinations would be valid, but not licit, because they are without a pontifical mandate. One who consecrates a bishop without papal permission incurs excommunication latae sententiae, that is, for simply having committed the act.

That’s what happened to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained in 1988, after which a formal decree of excommunication was drafted and published.

Now, it is rumored that a similar document has already been prepared in case the Society decides to move forward with the planned consecrations.

In fact, these types of decrees are standard, so it’s not certain that the model wasn’t ready some time ago, regardless of how the discussions within the SSPX went.

The SSPX, for its part, believes that even excommunication is not actually applicable to them. They reason that canon law does not allow the imposition of the penalty – excommunication – if the act that would incur it is committed in response to a perceived grave danger to the Church, or if one believes one is acting in good faith.

That is actually true, but it is the same reasoning Lefebvre used in 1988, when a papal decree became a fact against which there was no declaiming.

In recent weeks, the SSPX also published a lengthy interview with its superior, Father Davide Pagliarani, who reiterated the Society’s sense of urgency and the need to ordain new bishops to ensure its survival.

In fact, the SSPX lacks even a genuine desire to engage in dialogue with the Holy See. Even in previous communications, it has been made clear that many of the Holy See’s decisions or approaches are considered borderline heretical, and therefore, there can be no dialogue on this issue.

In short, Leo XIV finds himself caught between two fires, both particularly stubborn.

On one side, those who want doctrine to evolve to the point of adapting to society, because otherwise—and this is a frequently recurring phrase—the Church will no longer be relevant. On the other hand, those who believe the Church has evolved too much, to the point of deeming anything emanating from the Holy See inappropriate, especially in doctrinal terms.

The question to ask is simply this: Which side is Leo XIV on?

The pope’s actions at least suggest a clear line somewhere, but not the line itself—not one drawn by the mere will of the pope—and certainly not one that he intends by force of will to trace.

Leo XIV supports manifestations in which the presence of God is felt, regardless of debates over their legitimacy.

Last year, for example, it was surprising that Leo XIV allegedly sent a message of greeting to the Paris-Chartres pilgrimage, attended by thousands, mostly young people, all attached to the traditional rite – it was actually said that the Pope was praying for the pilgrimage and read excerpts of a letter the Pope had sent to Catholic of France. Then, the nuncio to England, Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendía, announced that Leo XIV had asked that exceptions be made to celebrate according to the ancient rite whenever requested.

In short, Leo XIV extended a hand to the traditional world, trying to overcome the attitude of clear closure that had characterized the end of Pope Francis’s pontificate.

This attitude had also affected religious congregations considered traditionalist, such as the Heralds of the Gospel, an organization born in Brazil and then spread worldwide. For years, the Heralds of the Gospel had been prevented from ordaining new priests. They were placed under special administration—the commissioner is Cardinal Raymondo Damasceno Assis—for allegations that were never fully verified, and with all civil cases ultimately ending in their favor.

After many years of stalemate, however, on April 11 and 12, the Heralds of the Gospel were finally able to ordain 26 new priests, in a heartfelt celebration that also marked a return of hope.

The Heralds were just one example of groups deemed too traditional that were targeted under Pope Francis. In some cases, these were very small groups, which therefore failed to gain traction. In other cases, there was a veritable storm, as in the case of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae —which then-Archbishop Prevost knew well—where accusations of abuse against the founder led not to a reform (as had happened in similar cases, such as the Legionaries of Christ), but to the actual suppression of the order.

It must be said that Pope Francis’s pontificate was also influenced by a sort of “Latin American civil war” that had arisen in the post-Vatican II years, where tensions between Liberation Theology and more traditional movements had become almost unbearable.

Leo XIV was not affected by those tensions, even though he experienced them as a missionary priest and bishop in Peru. For this reason, Leo XIV was called to find a difficult balance between the demands of those who wanted a more present and vibrant Church in social issues and the need to evangelize, to bring in new vocations and foster the growth of the Church.

This is the great challenge the Pope faces in managing the traditionalist case.

The traditionalists know it, and they are spreading the narrative of a Holy See that is unwilling to listen and with which no agreement should be reached. In fact, according to the SSPX, Leo XIV should let them do their thing, without threatening excommunication.

Excommunication, however, is necessary for the pope to demonstrate his standing within the Church, and this is why there is excommunication latae sentantiae, that is, for the mere fact of having committed an act.

Meanwhile, the idea that the Pope must accept anything in the name of an unclear principle of mercy is an argument that cannot hold up, although it has been promoted many times since the Second Vatican Council.

The theme, one can be sure, will recur repeatedly throughout Leo XIV’s pontificate. With time, it will become clear whether the Pope’s desire is to absorb the crisis or rather to address it, lifting the obstacles that create division and reasoning, in this case, too, in terms of the unity of the Church.

When asked specifically about the decision of Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop Emeritus of Munich, to formally bless same-sex couples, Leo XIV said the Holy See had already informed the German bishops [...]]]> The press conference on the plane returning from Africa provided the first sign of Leo XIV’s notable break with Pope Francis’s pontificate.

When asked specifically about the decision of Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop Emeritus of Munich, to formally bless same-sex couples, Leo XIV said the Holy See had already informed the German bishops that it did not agree with “the formal blessing of couples—in this case, same-sex couples as requested—or of couples in irregular situations, beyond what Pope Francis has specifically permitted, saying that all persons should receive the blessing.”

Leo went further.

“When a priest gives the blessing at the end of Mass,” he said, “when the Pope gives the blessing at the end of a great celebration like the one we had today, there are blessings for all people.”

He also noticed how ” Francis’s famous expression, ‘everyone, everyone, everyone,’ (todos, todos, todos) expresses the Church’s conviction that everyone is welcomed, everyone is invited, everyone is invited to follow Jesus, and everyone is invited to seek conversion in their own lives.”

“To go beyond this today,” Leo said, “could cause more disunity than unity, and that we should seek to build our unity on Jesus Christ and on what Jesus Christ teaches.”

At the beginning of his response, Leo XIV also emphasized that the Church’s morality concerns not only sexual matters, but also justice, equality, and peace. It’s not the first time he’s said this, and it’s not surprising.

In this regard, it is worth mentioning how the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church itself encompasses a variety of topics and organizes them around a central theme: the Eucharist.

This is why the Eucharist has weight, and so does the liturgy, and every time this weight is relativized, the Church’s social doctrine is relativized as well.

The way Leo XIV addressed the blessing issue marked a necessary discontinuity.

The blessing of irregular couples was outlined in the Instruction Fiducia Supplicans, one of the few Vatican documents that prompted entire episcopal conferences to distance themselves.

Subsequently, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published an implementing note, which, as the Pope noted, only created greater disunity. It even went so far as to define how long the blessing should be and how it should be performed. An extreme exercise in casuistry and pragmatism that also ran counter to Pope Francis’s call to avoid casuistry.

It was essentially an unnecessary document because it intervened in a practice that was already in place. No priest had ever refused a simple blessing (i.e., a sign of the cross on the forehead) when asked.

Fiducia Supplicans also generated another downside. Pastors, armed with the document and with years of experience in LGBT pastoral work, called same-sex couples and had their portraits photographed while they blessed them privately, in a gesture that was not a marriage, but which nevertheless symbolically seemed to approve a union that was not a marriage.

The politics of mercy thus became fodder for ideological controversy, especially at a time when the Church in Germany was shaken by these progressive tendencies, which sought precisely to undermine its structure.

The German “Synodal Way” is a structural crisis rooted in the notion that the crisis of the Church in Germany, confirmed by the crisis of abuse and coverup, is rooted in antiquated systems that must be dismantled, even if it means jettisoning centuries-old practices such as celibacy or, indeed, the very notion of family.

It’s the principle of adapting to the world to keep pace with the times, and it’s what was also adopted in the Synod of the Universal Church, when some synodalists even attempted to bypass the term “universal Church” with the idea that “universal” would suggest a large corporation.

The problem is that concepts shouldn’t change because they’re misunderstood, but rather, they need to be explained so they can be better understood. Ultimately, a world that adapts is a world that gives up teaching.

But if there’s no one to teach, there’s no unity either. And this is where Leo XIV hits the nail on the head. All the anxiety to create a new, practical, alternative path, in step with the times, even beyond Church doctrine, has created disunity. This disunity is evident in every field.

Looking, for example, at the traditionalist camp, we know that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), the so-called Lefebvrians, have decided to ordain new bishops on July 2 next. They do not have a papal mandate, which would make the bishops legitimate (because they were ordained by legitimately ordained bishops) but not licit (because they were ordained without papal approval). For these things, there is excommunication, and therefore a small schism.

The Holy See obviously tried to avert this eventuality, and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith invited the SSPX to a dialogue at the former Holy Office. This dialogue came to nothing. Interestingly, however, the SSPX reversed the arguments and asked that the same mercy it had claimed to apply to other situations be applied to them. It asked, in effect, for a suspension of the law in the name of pastoral care, which perhaps in this case should be defined more precisely as pastoralist care.

Leo XIV has never explicitly distanced himself from Pope Francis’s pontificate. He recognizes his missionary zeal and wants to highlight his good faith and his desire to evangelize. But with his words on the plane, Leo XIV also highlighted how there are ways to go about it and ways not to go about it.

Ways that create or exacerbate division are not the way.

There’s no telling whether this is the end of the synodal journey of the German Church. Pope Francis has repeatedly addressed the issue, emphasizing that there was already an Evangelical Church in Germany and highlighting a process of Protestantization within the German Church that could not be accepted. However, Pope Francis also left room for the German Church to intervene, through his pastoral actions and decisions which, in seeking to open up to all, created opportunities for discussion.

Leo XIV, instead, established a clear principle, placing doctrine back at the center.

If the German Church had been able to “play” with Pope Francis, this seems more difficult with Leo XIV. It’s a different approach that doesn’t deny the need to reach everyone, but doesn’t want this need to become a reason for the faith’s destruction.

It’s not a new approach, but it’s different from what we’ve become accustomed to over the past 12 years, and it remains to be seen whether it will trigger a rejection crisis.

Leo has been in Africa since April 13, on a journey taking him to Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea. On the eve of his departure, however, a letter Leo XIV sent to the cardinals in [...]]]> The first anniversary of Pope Francis’s death will pass with his successor, Pope Leo XIV, in Africa.

Leo has been in Africa since April 13, on a journey taking him to Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea. On the eve of his departure, however, a letter Leo XIV sent to the cardinals in preparation for the upcoming consistory of June 26-27 was released.

The letter is important because it explains how Leo XIV intends to address and carry forward Pope Francis’s legacy, a significant topic of discussion in the broader discourse of the Church and a subject that has garnered the interest and attention of Vatican watchers both professional and amateur.

Francis was a forceful pope, breaking with much of the previous tradition, introducing his own style, and imposing a new form of governance.

From the moment he presented himself to the faithful as Pope, however, Leo XIV has demonstrated a balanced approach to his predecessor’s complex figure. Leo has revived the symbols of the pontifical office, starting with the red mozzetta, which Pope Francis never wore. Loe also almost also immediately referred to synodality – a buzzword of his predecessor’s pontificate – as a method of governance.

Synodality-as-governance, however, does not appear to necessitate or even recommend itself to the celebration of large synodal assemblies in which cardinals, bishops, priests, and even laypeople sit together without hierarchy or decision-making power. Nor does it apply, as it did with Pope Francis, to the appointment of various commissions and sub-commissions, starting with the famous Council of Cardinals, a group of 9, 8, or 6 cardinals that was essentially the G7 of the Church—and was in fact called the C9.

The Council of Cardinals, at last, represented a sort of elite: the Pope’s privileged advisors, who effectively sidelined the “college” of cardinals.

Leo XIV’s synodality, on the other hand, applies to the convocation of extraordinary consistories, now held every six months, where cardinals from around the world come to Rome for discussions.

The first of these consistories took place in January, and the model was Pope Francis’s “synodal” one. It was, in effect, a consistory divided into working groups, where only the relevant representatives were able to speak, and where certain topics were necessarily left aside.

It is not known why the consistory was organized in this way, but it is possible that Leo XIV gradually abandoned this model, seeking instead to involve the cardinals in more general matters.

The April 12 letter is an example of how Leo XIV intends to manage Francis’s legacy. Leo takes only one element of the latest discussions, namely what has matured regarding Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis’s exhortation, which represented the program of his pontificate.

“Your contributions make it clear that this Exhortation continues to be a significant point of
Reference. In addition to introducing new content,” Leo wrote, “[Evangelii Gaudium] refocuses everything on the kerygma as the heart of our Christian and ecclesial identity.”

“It was recognized as a ‘breath of fresh air’,” Leo went on to write, “capable of initiating processes of pastoral and missionary conversion — rather than producing immediate structural reforms — and thus profoundly guiding the Church’s journey“.

Leo XIV notes that this dimension “calls every baptized person to renew their encounter with Christ, moving from a faith merely received to a faith truly lived and experienced. This journey affects the very quality of spiritual life, expressed in the primacy of prayer, in the witness that precedes words, and in the coherence between faith and life.”

Instead, at the community level, Evangelii Gaudium “calls for a shift from a pastoral approach of maintenance to one of mission. This requires communities to be living agents of the proclamation — welcoming communities that use accessible language, attentive to the quality of relationships, and capable of offering places for listening, accompaniment and healing. At the diocesan level, the responsibility of Pastors to resolutely support missionary boldness emerges clearly, ensuring that such boldness is not weighed down or stifled by organizational excesses, but is guided by a discernment that helps us to recognize what is essential.”.

What is striking in this description is that Leo XIV asks pastors to have Christ as their primary point of reference, to place evangelization at the center of their work, and to act with personal responsibility—that is, to act courageously. Indeed, the Pope later speaks of an “integral mission,” and emphasizes: “Even when the Church finds herself in a minority, she is called to live with confident courage, as a small flock bringing hope to all, mindful that the aim of mission is not its own survival, but the communication of the love with which God loves the world.”

Evangelii Gaudium, therefore, represents an important point of reference for several reasons. It is Pope Francis’s first exhortation, and therefore was not influenced by the problems of governance and the responses Francis was making to these problems; it is an exhortation that focuses on evangelization, and therefore focuses on a widely shared theme; it is an exhortation that recounts the good intentions of a pontificate, and not the governance problems that this pontificate subsequently encountered.

In his first year as pontiff, Leo XIV has frequently cited Francis, always seeking to draw on the best of the previous pontificate. Likewise, he did not fail to mark a discontinuity in certain decisions, from financial matters (the IOR is no longer central to investments, for example) to some operational decisions (the restoration of the Central sector in the diocese of Rome), to a less rigid application of Traditionis Custodes, seeking to heal the rift with the traditionalist world.

Over time, Leo XIV further defined his intellectual profile, increasingly infusing his own touch into his speeches, and firmly maintaining the belief that the Church must be able to speak truthfully, above all else. He said it in his first address to the Diplomatic Corps, he said it at the prayer vigil for Peace on April 11, when he emphasized that the Church knows it can be despised, and he even emphasized it in his response to questions about US President Donald Trump’s attacks on him, explaining that the Church will never be afraid to speak out for peace.

Leo XIV is moving toward the idea of an integral mission, which also involves communications—at least, the profile of the new members of the Dicastery for Communication announced last week suggests precisely this—but which above all concerns his being Pope. And the integral mission was, ideally, that of Pope Francis, who never failed to speak of an outgoing Church.

All this to show how Leo XIV’s relationship with Francis’s legacy is one of equilibrium and absorption, rather than opposition or replacement.

In short, Leo’s approach is balanced.

Much will be seen when the presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences meet for the tenth anniversary of Amoris Laetitia next September. The impression is that, even then, Leo XIV wants to focus on the good missionary aspects of the discussions and leave the rest to casuistry. Thus, every contradiction will be absorbed, and every good thing will be exalted.

A week after his appointment as Deputy Secretary of State, Archbishop Paolo Rudelli promptly arrived at the Vatican, where he [...]]]> On March 28, two weeks after his appointment as Archbishop of Lodz, Cardinal Konrad Krajewski took possession of his see, fulfilling his promise to ensure that a bishop would lead the diocese by Easter.

A week after his appointment as Deputy Secretary of State, Archbishop Paolo Rudelli promptly arrived at the Vatican, where he met the staff, introduced by none other than the Secretary of State himself, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Leo XIV appointed new members to the Dicastery for Communication—an expected but carefully calculated decision. The Pope’s choices sent a clear message: his priorities and vision would now set the tone for communications.

At the same time, an international scandal erupted when the subscription magazine The Free Press revealed that the former nuncio to the United States, Cardinal Pierre, had been summoned to the Pentagon. It reported that the Catholic Undersecretary of Defense had implied that the Holy See should align with the United States, drawing a comparison to the Avignon period when the Church was under the influence of French kings. This event further illustrates the complex environment facing Leo XIV’s reforms.

This reconstruction, to be fair, was later denied by Cardinal Pierre and the Undersecretary of Defense, who described a cordial and respectful atmosphere. It is very likely that it was an informal conversation—also because the nuncio is not summoned to the “Defense Ministry” but rather to the Foreign Ministry—and that it was recounted somewhat breathlessly, which ultimately led the journalist to write as he did.

These four events might seem unrelated at first glance.

A closer look reveals a subtle, connecting theme: the Pope’s leadership style and priorities as seen through reforms, appointments, communication strategy, and diplomatic engagement. By examining these connections, we can better understand the Pope’s approach.

First of all, these events determined the speed with which the Pope implemented reforms. He thought carefully, listened to everyone, and perhaps seemed slow to make a decision. But when he decided, Leo XIV decided relentlessly, without hesitation, and expected his decisions to be implemented.

The rapid move and Rudelli’s equally rapid arrival at the Secretariat of State demonstrate the Pope’s desire for rapid change when necessary. Moreover, Rudelli possesses another characteristic beloved by the Pope: institutionality. Indeed, he chose to occupy the substitute’s apartment in the Third Lodge, forgoing the isolated apartment that his predecessor, Pena Parra, had chosen for himself in the Second Lodge, where the diplomatic staff is located.

Second, these events illustrate how Leo XIV implements generational change. The new members of the Dicastery for Communication were eagerly awaited, as the last appointments were in 2021 and all members had therefore expired.

In choosing the new members, Leo XIV made a clear choice: he included the two pro-prefects of the Dicastery for Evangelization (Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle and Archbishop Rino Fisichella), as well as the preacher of the Pontifical Household, who in recent memory had never been included as a member of a dicastery. He also included several presidents of continental episcopal organizations, but there are no Europeans among the new members. There is one cardinal, Cristobal Lopez, Archbishop of Rabat, who has a solid background as a journalist but is at heart a missionary who has lived the life and walked the missionary walk.

In short, Leo XIV seems to be thinking of the Holy See’s communication as something that must first and foremost reach the ends of the earth. No longer just the voice of the Pope, but the voice of the people. Above all, the idea is to develop evangelization.

This could also lead to a reform of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication, which currently has both institutional and pastoral roles, as well as news distribution, under its purview. Many hope that the Holy See Press Office will once again report directly to the Secretariat of State, so that official communications will be directly linked to the Pope’s Secretariat, without excessive bureaucracy.

We’ll see.

Meanwhile, Leo XIV will have to appoint a new Prefect of Communications by the end of the year, given that Paolo Ruffini’s term expires. The choice of Ruffini’s successor will be a further signal: will the Pope again choose a layperson, or will he opt for a cleric?

Evangelization also shapes Leo XIV’s diplomacy.

In his Easter urbi et orbi message, he broke with tradition. Leo XIV addressed political leaders head-on, demanding they lay down arms and open direct dialogue. When President Donald Trump declared his intention to destroy a civilization, Leo XIV responded decisively, calling Catholics to mobilize for peace and studiously omitting mention of Trump by name.

His message was unambiguous: the Pope sets principles; Catholics must act with conviction.

Leo XIV’s diplomacy defends principle and personal responsibility, rising above partisanship. The Pentagon meeting with Cardinal Pierre is a telling example: discussions of U.S. positions may have occurred, perhaps Avignon was referenced, but interpreting this as a threat is unsound.

The dialectic has changed. The signals being sent are different.

Leo XIV called for disarmament, and this is one example where language must be disarmed to avoid narrative conflict. Leo XIV’s pontificate, however, is unmistakably coming into is own, characterized by careful and deliberate reform, the revival of institutional symbols, and unflinching clarity of communication. The Pope’s direction is ‘Leonine.’

It’s early for final judgments, but the direction seems clear.