Leo XIV, between nuances and new directions

Last February 18th, the scaffolding inside the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican came down, a sign the the traditional pontifical abode is ready for Pope Leo to take up residence.

The news has circulated through the Vatican grapevine, with some trepidation.

Leo XIV’s move to the Apostolic Palace will, in fact, symbolically concludes a transition. In some ways, at least, it represents a return to normality, of a piece with Leo’s habitual use of other trappings of papal office, like the mozzetta, which Pope Francis had consistently refused to wear.

The return to the Apostolic Palace, however, should not be interpreted as the closing of Pope Francis’s parenthesis.

It represents, perhaps, something different, the beginning of a pontificate linked to the past but not disconnected from the one that preceded it. Leo XIV will not be a pontiff of rupture, nor of restoration, and he will probably not even be a transitional pontiff. He will, more likely, be a pontiff called to restore order and harmony.

Leo will be a builder not of bridges but of their foundations, because, ultimately, in a time of crisis of faith, a heritage of culture and education of the highest caliber has been squandered.

What brings me to these conclusions? Essentially,  three events from last week, all three revealing in some way, the first of which is the publication of the papal travel itinerary.

The Pope will spend the first anniversary of his pontificate, May 8th, in Pompeii to pray to the Virgin Mary, and then in Naples to meet with the people there.

On May 23, the eve of the 11th anniversary of the promulgation of Laudato Si, Leo XIV will be in Acerra, in the so-called Italian “Lands of Fire,” where “fire” refers to burned waste and pollution that causes tumors and diseases.

On the afternoon of June 20, Leo XIV will be in Pavia, where Saint Augustine, the inspirer of the religious order to which he belongs, has his resting place.

On July 4th, the 250th anniversary of the United States’ Independence Day, Leo XIV travels to Lampedusa, and it is a very strong symbolic sign: the Pope, who comes from the United States, and who will not return to the United States to celebrate his nation’s quarter-millennium, will celebrate July 4th in a place where migrants land, while the government of his native land aggressively pursues a policy of expulsion.

On August 6, Leo XIV returns to Assisi to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the passing of Saint Francis, and on August 22, he will be in Rimini to participate in the Rimini Meeting, a major event organized every year by Communion and Liberation.

These announced trips are all small signals.

The focus on the ecological theme developed by Pope Francis remains, but there is also considerable room for popular devotion. The Pope sends a “political” message with his visit to Lampedusa, which was Pope Francis’s first trip, but at the same time, he decides to attend an event of Communion and Liberation, a movement considered conservative and currently too closely aligned with a political faction.

In short, the Pope doesn’t detract from the previous pontificate but adds and enriches its legacy with nuance, seeks to broaden the perspective, and engages in dialogue, even with those who seemed to be outside it.

The second event is a non-event.

On February 19, Leo XIV met, as Popes always do at the beginning of Lent, with the clergy of the diocese of Rome, of which he is bishop. The appointment of new auxiliaries of Rome was expected, but this appointment was not announced. This doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. But it demonstrates how unpredictable the Pope is in this regard.

The appointment of auxiliaries is necessary. Pope Francis not only eliminated the historic center sector from the Diocese of Rome—later restored by Leo XIV—but he also effectively transferred all auxiliary bishops. Almost all of the sectors into which the Diocese of Rome is divided have been entrusted, in the last year, to episcopal vicars, and in total, there are three active bishops serving in the Diocese of Rome, including Cardinal Vicar Baldassarre Reina.

This is an interesting fact, considering that Pope Francis had appointed up to eight auxiliary bishops for his diocese.

Leo XIV should not proceed with major upheavals,  such as promoting the current episcopal vicars to the rank of bishop. This decision demonstrates his prudence, but also his desire to maintain a connection to the territory, since all episcopal vicars are Roman. What we observe is a reversal of the trend: Pope Francis, instead, brought auxiliaries from other dioceses to Rome, almost as if to break a pre-established pattern.

That Leo XIV did not make the announcement also demonstrates that the Pope does not intend to proceed with a shakeup but wants to normalize and harmonize a situation that has been exceptional for over a year.

The third event concerns the dialogue with the Lefebvrians, and it is here that the complexity of the legacy left by Pope Francis is most evident.

As was to be expected, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X rejected the preconditions for the theological dialogue proposed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, namely, acceptance of the Council and a dialogue on certain topics, with the condition that they not proceed with the episcopal appointments already announced.

But, in responding to the Vatican, the SSPX also reversed the issue. It noted that the previous pontificate had always spoken of a canonical-pastoral right, as well as of the right to be heard, and that, therefore, rather than threatening schism or serious sanctions, one could act instead in accordance with charity, understanding that the Society’s sole purpose is to care for souls.

Furthermore, the Society noted that the demand for a dialogue on the basic principles of faith to bring about reconciliation between traditionalists and Catholics cannot even be undertaken, simply because the Church’s tradition is non-negotiable.

The response sets the difficulties created during Pope Francis’s pontificate in high relief. Synodality today also represents a weapon in the hands of the traditionalist world, which Pope Francis had initially flattered and with which he abruptly cut off all possibility of dialogue in 2017—as the Superior of the Society, Father Davide Pagliarani, also recounts in the letter sent to Cardinal Fernández.

It is well known that the management of the traditionalist crisis is the first significant test for Leo XIV. At the same time, the prudence in choosing new bishops, as well as the messages sent by his choice of trips to Italy, demonstrate that Leo XIV does not want to abandon the entire legacy of Pope Francis. There is continuity, which is the continuity by which the Church lives.

The great challenge now is to find coherence and carry forward the decisions, both pastorally and in terms of governance.

The transition from the Franciscan era to the Leonine seems endless, and perhaps it never will really end, or at least never end with any discernible sign. Seamlessness occasionally appears to be the goal of the reigning pontiff.

Only when Leo XIV has clearly outlined the transition will it be possible to understand the true shape of this pontificate.