Leo XIV: What will his leadership be like?

After one hundred days of Pope Leo XIV in office, there is curiosity and even anxiety over how the still very young pontificate will develop. Those who want radical change cannot understand why the Pope does not rid himself of what they consider the remnants of Francis’s pontificate. But those who have enthusiastically experienced the Francis years are pushing for an interpretation of Leo’s every move as bespeaking complete continuity, though that is not obviously the case and in fact suggests more wishful thinking than candid observation.

The audience Pope Leo XIV granted to Father James Martin SJ, is a case-in-point.

A Jesuit who has made LGBT pastoral care a central – and very public – focus of his ministry, Martin is no stranger to controversy. He enjoyed the favor of Pope Francis and parlayed that favor into a major bump in his public profile. That is a big part of the reason Martin’s visit with Leo, sounded alarm bells for many.

The Jesuit magazine America was quick to point out that the Pope’s receiving Father Martin in the apostolic library was a clear sign of esteem and support. Martin himself provided an account of the meeting, stating that no, there is no turning back on LGBT pastoral care, because Leo XIV has shown the same sensitivity as Pope Francis.

In truth, Father Martin also said that the Pope feels greater urgency, starting with world peace, and therefore it shouldn’t be surprising if the Pope doesn’t make any proclamations in favor of the LGBT population. What matters is that welcome will remain guaranteed.

It’s not just conservatives who are worried. Progressives, however, were alarmed by the audience granted by Leo XIV to Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, the champion of anti-immigration and sovereignist policies, whom Pope Francis had never wanted to meet. Even then, the only account of the meeting came from Salvini, and it was not triumphalistic.

These are just the latest two examples in an endless series of actions and situations being pondered, awaiting a decision from the Pope that at least demonstrates a firm stance. But—and this is the point—this decision may never come.

With the pontificate of Leo XIV, a page of history has been turned. We find ourselves faced with a Pope of a new generation, far removed from the debate of the Council, from ideological and para-political positions, even from the idea of having to concede anything to public opinion.

While the debate festers on specific issues, Leo XIV looks beyond those debates. Moreover, in 2006, Benedict XVI, meeting with the Swiss bishops on their ad limina visit, complained that, when he was an expert at the Council, he always received the same questions in interviews: Will there be women priests? Will there be exceptions to priestly celibacy?

The Francis pontificate never got past those questions of the conciliar era. In fact, Francis multiplied them and intensified the focus on them. In the name of pastoral care as the world’s parish priest, with a Latin American vision imposed on the universal Church, Pope Francis condemned almost everyone with the cry of “todos, todos, todos.”

Pope Francis, if we are perfectly frank, never really analyzed issues or the questions underlying them with any sort of rigor or profundity. Thus, the concept of “todos todos, todos” was perhaps expressed in documents like Fiducia supplicans, but it could not find full development on issues like the female diaconate. The post-synodal exhortation following the Special Synod on the Pan-Amazonian Region, Ecclesia in Amazonia, was one that did nothing but left everything open and therefore displeased everyone.

Across the spectrum of opinion in the Church, there is agreement at least on the fact that Francis governed more by force of personality than by careful institutionalism or rule of law, and liked to say that mercy was the motive force of his decision-making processes. That kind of approach may be powerfully effective, but it has a downside. Benedict XVI had noted, in his 2010 letter to the Catholics of Ireland, that excessive mercy had led to a loss of sight of the law, and that the loss of sight of the law had also led to a failure to respond to the criminal tragedy of sexual abuse.

From what we have seen so far, this is not Leo XIV’s approach.

Leo XIV understands the work of institutions, and for this reason, he will not make anti-institutional decisions. He will meet those who request to meet him, and he will not deny Pope Francis’s decisions. If Francis had decided to meet Father Martin with full honors, Leo XIV would have no reason not to continue along that path.

At the same time, Leo XIV also knows the terms of diplomatic rudeness, and above all, he has no prejudicial qualms about meeting this or that politician. After receiving Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani of Italy, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, Leo could not refuse an audience to Italy’s other Deputy Prime Minister, Matteo Salvini, who is also Minister of Transport. This choice does not imply unconditional support for Salvini’s policies. Instead, it is a choice that smacks of institutional balance.

So far, the Pope hasn’t made any significant decisions, and this is often mistaken for a lack of leadership. Many are trying to intervene in this debate, emphasizing continuity with the previous pontificate, and even quoting Pope Francis, even when it seems exaggerated, as in an interview Cardinal Matteo Zuppi gave to Corriere della Sera on September 4, in which he even emphasized that the pope-guessing game is thanks to Francis, who has made the Church popular again.

But can the pontificate of Leo XIV really be read in continuity with that of Pope Francis?

When, during Francis’s pontificate, people looked for similarities and differences with previous experiences, the typical response was that Pope Francis could not be compared and that it was wrong to compare popes and seek continuity. Why, instead, are the same people who claimed Francis’s originality unable to admit the originality of Leo XIV?

Being thoughtful in making decisions can be a strength, not just a sign of weakness. The lack of ideological connections with the various sides of the debate is also something to consider. It remains to be seen that Leo XIV gave a program during his first Mass in the Sistine Chapel: disappear so that Christ may remain.

Until now, episcopal appointments have represented continuity with Pope Francis, even in potentially controversial cases. But we have seen Leo XIV also begin to redefine the exceptions, moving the Committee for World Children’s Day within the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.

Leo XIV will likely continue in this manner, maintaining what can be maintained and making gradual changes, patiently weaving the web that will truly lead to the Curia of Leo XIV. It could take years.

What remains to be seen is whether this will lead to new pressure on the Holy See, similar to the Vatileaks scandal that erupted under Benedict XVI and proliferated under Pope Francis. In Francis’s case, an institutional weakness had been identified on which to attack the Holy See, and the Pope’s reactions—up to the summary proceedings for the trial regarding the management of the Secretariat of State’s funds—were furious, but always perceived as a blanket too short.

Today, that institutional weakness is disappearing, as Leo XIV continues on his path. His words to the administrators of the diocese of Cretéil, his call on Catholic politicians to say “no” when necessary, have received little media coverage. They point, however, to a specific path, where the Gospel can no longer be a difficult-to-achieve ideal, but rather a necessity of life lived. This does not mean setting aside mercy. It means asking people to live their lives to their fullest potential.

This may be where the current novelty of the pontificate is really located.

The page of history has turned. We are at the dawn of a new era. And any nostalgic attempt to turn back the clock will likely be swallowed up by Pope Leo’s actions.