Leo XIV: Toward the definition of a pontificate

As we approach the first anniversary of his election, it appears Leo XIV is beginning to reveal the contours and the substance of his reign.

In just the last week, two events have demonstrated specific characteristics of Leo XIV’s pontificate: The ruling issued by the appellate tribunal of Vatican City, which could flip the script on the so-called “trial of the century”; the convocation of the presidents of the world’s Episcopal Conferences to commemorate the tenth anniversary of Amoris Laetitia.

These two events appear to be completely unrelated, and indeed they are.

The first—the court order—is not even a decision of Leo XIV, but more likely a consequence of the change of pontificate, where there is no longer a Pope to intervene during the process and somehow shape its outcome. The second, a direct decision of the Pope, shows us something very important about how Leo intends to follow Francis.

Both developments tells us something, somehow, about who Pope Leo XIV is and about how he actually governs.

The Vatican appeals court’s order concerns the so-called “ Becciu trial” over the management of the Secretariat of State’s funds.

The trial concerned in part Cardinal Becciu and his decision, as deputy, to send aid to a Caritas cooperative in his home diocese, as well as his relationship with self-styled humanitarian worker Cecilia Marogna for the release of several hostages. The crux of the case, however, was the Secretariat of State’s investment in a luxury property in London, which resulted in a huge loss after several changes of ownership and the subsequent refusal of the Institute for the Works of Religion to assist the Secretariat of State with a financial advance, ultimately leading to a formal complaint and proceedings.

During the 86 hearings of the first-instance trial, which ended with the conviction of nine of the ten defendants, resulting in 38 years of imprisonment and about €200 million in fines, the defendants repeatedly argued that the trial itself had been “distorted” by several issues.

First, the documentation made available by the Promoter of Justice (the Vatican prosecutor ) was riddled with redactions, making it difficult to contextualize. These redactions were later revealed when they were published in a different, related investigation, which also revealed a relationship between the Promoter of Justice and two individuals who had influence over Monsignor Alberto Perlasca. This latter was first a defendant, then a key witness, and ultimately considered only a person informed of the facts in the trial.

The second issue is that Pope Francis published four rescripts during the investigations that changed the laws on the fly. These rescripts had remained confidential and were disclosed only during the trial, making the defense’s work even more complex.

All these issues arose during the first-instance trial, but to no avail.

The presiding judge, Giuseppe Pignatone, while ensuring maximum transparency and the ability to question and cross-examine, nevertheless failed to address the issue. The ruling immediately appeared highly questionable, also because the reasoning, in some cases, did not demonstrate “proven” guilt.

The appeal process, however, was immediately different.

The presiding judge, Archbishop Alejandro Arellano, opened the door to the possibility of disqualification of the Promoter of Justice Alessandro Diddi, as requested by the defense. The Promoter of Justice then abstained from proceeding with the trial, a decision that ultimately prevented the establishment of his responsibilities. Thus, the Promoter of Justice’s appeal itself was declared inadmissible, due to obvious procedural flaws. Finally, on March 17, with a 16-page order, the Court of Appeals declared the first-instance trial null and void, upholding many of the defense’s reservations.

The conclusions of the first-instance trial remain valid, but the hearing will be retried at the second-instance trial because the defense was unable to gain a full understanding of the situation and because Pope Francis’s rescripts had effectively created the conditions for a “paradigm shift” in Vatican City criminal law highly unfavorable to the defense.

In a brilliant bit of juridical prestidigitation, whatever one thinks of its substance, the judges did not overturn Pope Francis’s decisions. They simply declared the consequences null and void, and restarted the proceedings not from the beginning, but from the moment they entered the case.

Basically, the judges avoided saying that Francis lacked the power to do what he did – he was the absolute sovereign of the Vatican City State, after all – but they did find that he did not effectively do what he tried to do, because the rescripts were improperly executed from a technical-precedural point-of-view.

This is not a damnatio memoriae, but it certainly reopens the proceedings.

Despite their “diplomatic” caution—if one may say so—it is clear that the new trial could lead to completely different conclusions from those of the first instance.

We’re not starting from scratch, in other words, but we’re starting over—and this this is the central characteristic of Leo XIV’s pontificate.

The debate over continuity or discontinuity with Pope Francis is sterile because Leo XIV himself isn’t interested. He will make corrections where he deems necessary, but without repudiating what came before.

The appeals court applied this reasoning. But it did so because it is the Pope’s reasoning. And it is evident in the convocation of all the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences for the tenth anniversary of Amoris Laetitia.

The debate over Amoris Laetitia developed primarily around a note that seemed to allow divorced and remarried people to receive communion. This issue had caused considerable confusion among the faithful, given a text that nonetheless reaffirmed fundamental questions of the faith and had also led to the famous dubia of four cardinals.

Those dubia had remained unanswered, many of the cardinals who had raised them had since died, but now Leo XIV is starting from there. He doesn’t demonize the exhortation; he doesn’t establish a new procedure, but simply celebrates the document’s tenth anniversary, recalling it in a text that highlights all the uncontroversial passages, and convening all the presidents of the episcopal conferences for a debate to update them.

This doesn’t mean the exhortation will be disavowed. It does, however, mean that the exhortation will be viewed in a different light.

The contours and substance of the pontificate, in short, seem to be emerging as follows: No break with the past, but rather adjustments, corrections, and clarifications, in an attempt to remain in line with the history of the Church, which certainly did not end with the pontificate of Pope Francis, just as it did not end with previous pontificates.

This is why we shouldn’t expect any major revolutions from Leo XIV.

Everything will change in due time. But in the meantime, Leo listens. And, step by step, he takes action if he deems it appropriate. It’s not a revolution, it’s not a restoration.

Quite simply, it is a pontificate: Leo XIV’s pontificate.