Leo XIV: Between the legacy of Pope Francis and the need to look forward

The week in which Leo XIV published his first apostolic exhortation, Dilexi Te, was also the week in which he made the first governing decision that overrode a decision of his predecessor – on the subject of Vatican finances – and that is no small matter.

Dilexi Te is, in fact, profoundly the work of Pope Francis. His style is recognizable, and his ideological bêtes noires, among them elites and corrupt structures, are also highlighted. Leo XIV heavily revised the text he received, but the work was already well advanced. Leo, in short, has demonstrated his desire not to abandon the legacy of his immediate predecessor completely, while also translating and appropriating it in translation.

When it comes to the government of the Church – and more specifically of the Vatican – things may have begun to take a very different direction.

It was a personal decision by Pope Francis that entrusted all the Holy See’s investments to the Institute for the Works of Religion, also known as the “Vatican bank.” So much so, that Francis had even clarified this with a rescriptum that narrowly interpreted a provision contained in the Curia reform text, the Praedicate Evangelium, yet, in that case, Leo XIV had no doubts in cancelling that decision with the stroke of a pen, abrogating the rescriptum with a three-article motu proprio that, right from its name – Coniucta Cura – demonstrates the desire to bring financial management issues back to a more collegial practice.

The two decisions are different in aspect, but they are of a piece with Leo’s overarching own understanding of his mission, which is to balance the cumbersome legacy of his predecessor while keeping himself and the Vatican – his Vatican, now – as well as the whole Church focused on the future.

Leo XIV is proceeding calmly, seeking first and foremost to settle outstanding issues without causing further upheaval. We won’t see him handing out jobs to his own people all at once, as though the offices of the Curia were his to give as part of a spoils system, but he will implement a necessary transition.

This attitude, of course, also has its downsides.

For some time, at least, it will lend a veneer of credibility to proponents of a narrative that would have Leo XIV in perfect alignment with his predecessor, that the synodality desired by Francis is more alive than ever, despite all signs to the contrary, and that Pope Francis’s revolution will continue apace.

Dilexi te does little to belie that narrative, at least not on the surface. The fact that Cardinals Michael Czerny and Konrad Krajewski – two “creations” of Pope Francis – were called to present Dilexi te could be taken as further confirmation of this.

Czerny, however, is 79 and about to retire, and the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development will soon have a new head. The Office of Almoners (i.e., the Dicastery for Charity), led by Krajewski, has also lost its central role under Pope Francis. Krajewski’s missions, which were also affected by the papal transition, have ceased, and his presence in the media has diminished.

Thus, everything could lead one to think of a long farewell, a prize before a farewell (for Czerny) or a redefinition of responsibilities (in the case of Krajewski). At the same time, an essential and theologically unquestionable part of Pope Francis’s role is kept, such as his attention to the poor, leaving everything else to be absorbed.

Could the publication of Dilexi te be a governing decision, then?

It is worth recalling how the first major document of the Francis pontificate, Lumen Fidei, was also begun by Francis’s predecessor in office, who was still alive at the time and somehow participated in the life of the Church. Benedict XVI certainly remained a point of reference for many.

The general idea is that generational change has already taken place with the election of Leo XIV, and will lead to a long farewell to a world that will no longer exist.

Four dicastery heads will change, a new consistory will likely be held next year when the numbers allow (130 people voted for the Pope at the last Conclave, too many according to the cardinals themselves). In the meantime, efforts are being made to manage a cumbersome legacy like that of Pope Francis in a graceful manner.

Pope Francis was, ultimately, the last expression of a 1970s world that also brought with it all its ideological and political violence.

The issue of the poor, ever-present in the history of the Church, had also affected the institutional model of the Holy See. Much had been questioned during those years, and much had subsequently been absorbed in the long pontificate of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Francis, ultimately, represented the last spark of a world now destined to change.

Leo XIV does not want to erase the legacy of the previous world. As had already happened with Liberation Theology, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote two instructions precisely to avoid destroying the positive side of the movement, Leo XIV appears desirous of avoiding a zero-sum reckoning with the world of the past, and genuinely to preserve the good he saw in that world.

He is neither a Pope of continuity nor a Pope of discontinuity. He surrounds himself with friends and friars for day-to-day decisions, and with institutional figures for governance decisions. He wears the mozzetta and all the insignia of the Papacy, including liturgical ones, but he also stops to speak informally with journalists.

In the final analysis, it will be how Leo governs that really matters. By stripping the IOR of its exclusive investment rights, the new pope took a necessary step.

Pope Francis had also given the IOR exclusive jurisdiction to address the scandal surrounding the management of the Secretariat of State’s funds. Pope Francis was convinced that by centralizing everything, everything would be absorbed. However, this centralization lost sight of collegiality, that is, the shared responsibility of all Curia bodies, as well as the necessary diversification of resources that would prevent excessive corruption. Because if a single body makes decisions without competition, problems are likely to arise. If, however, the bodies decide together, considering multiple options, it is more difficult for a corrupt structure to emerge.

This applies to finances, as well as to the management of the Curia. Following the appointment of Bishop Filippo Iannone as prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, it remains to be seen how Leo XIV will proceed and whether the reform of the Curia will be absorbed into a collegial and collaborative management of all the dicasteries.

Between the legacy of the past and a look to the future, the pontificate of Leo XIV is now fully in play.