While the discussions in the conclave that elevated Cardinal Robert Prevost to serve as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church will forever remain secret, his selection inevitably sends a message on the direction the cardinals have in mind. Prevost was not on any of the lists of papabile that I saw (Steve Bannon, of all people, was the only commentator who predicted this), but it's not unusual for the conclave to make an unexpected choice.
Born in Chicago, Leo XIV served for many years as a missionary in Peru, and was appointed Bishop of Chiclayo in 2014. In fact, he holds Peruvian citizenship. Having such a close connection to Latin America signals continuity with the Argentinian Pope Francis. At the same time, Leo's American origin gives him a unique voice in the United States. The first pope from the USA is only the second from the Americas, and the second from an English-speaking country (Pope Adrian IV, who served from 1154 to 1159, was the only pope from England). Leo is known for his concern for the poor, making him a successor to Francis in that regard. President Trump (who proposed himself for pope even though he's a Presbyterian) has called Leo's selection an honor; he may come to regret that if Leo is critical of the administration's policies toward refugees and immigrants.
The selection of a papal name also sends a message. Prevost chose the name Leo to honor the last pope of that name, Leo XIII, who served from 1878 to 1903. Leo XIII was a supporter of worker's rights, fair wages and safe working conditions, and trade unions. He was also a Thomist, the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas which holds that truth should be accepted regardless of its origins, whether Christian, pagan, Jewish, or Islamic. The choice of this papal name suggests that these views are also important to Leo XIV and their promotion will be elements of his papacy. Leo XIII was also the fourth longest-serving pope in history, and was around the same age as Prevost when he ascended to the papacy, so this also signals the hope that Leo XIV's reign will be a long one.
My expectations for the new pope are no change in the church's stance on abortion, LGBTQ, or the ordination of female priests, but with a renewed emphasis on the social justice issues Francis was known for, with particular attention to those issues in the United States.
He was elected on the second try, means there wasn't much of a debate and the Conclave's message is one of continuing the work of Pope Francis.
His initial speech was in Italian and Spanish and he emphasized the importance of building bridges and social justice.
The US conservative Catholics are already pissed and it's almost certain Trump is not going to like him, but he will try to get an audience for Melania. Leo XIV will stay clear of JD Vance for sure.
Prevost was not on any of the lists of papabile that I saw (only the New York Times mentioned him as a possible candidate), but it's not unusual for the conclave to make an unexpected choice.
The Wikipedia article has
Since Francis's death, Prevost had been called papabile, a leading candidate for election as pope during the 2025 papal conclave.[2][3][4]
with these as the footnotes:
2. "Who Could Be the Next Pope? These Are the Names to Know". Time. May 6, 2025. Retrieved May 6, 2025.
3. "U.S. cardinal's résumé, demeanor land him on 'papabile' lists". Angelusnews. April 30, 2025. Retrieved May 6, 2025.
4. "The first American pope? This cardinal has the best chance of making history in this conclave". National Catholic Registry Online. April 30, 2025. Retrieved May 6, 2025.
@NativePortlander1970 You mean your preferred interpretation of Biblical dogma. There are no verses in the Bible that specifically prohibit abortion, and the Genesis story of Adam's creation says that life begins with the first breath. Also, the bitter water test could be a recipe for a medication abortion.
The verses prohibiting gay sex in Leviticus are also questionable. Since men lack vaginas, it's impossible for two men to "lie with each other as with a woman," so clearly they are referring to something else. Here's an explanation from someone who understands ancient Hebrew.
The supposed prohibitions in the New Testament don't come from Jesus; they come from Paul. The term used is arsenokoitai, a word that may refer to specific pagan rituals, not anything we would consider to be the kind of gay sex that people have today. Matthew 8:5-13, the story of the centurion and his servant, uses the word pais to refer to the servant. In other contemporary writing, this word is an affectionate term for a younger gay lover. So this could be an example of Jesus blessing a loving same-sex relationship. Regarding lesbians, the Bible is silent.
Around a billion Protestants would disagree that the Bible forbids female priests. The prohibition in Romans against women speaking in church is contradicted by other verses where Paul describes women leading worship services. The original Christians met in believers' homes since they didn't have dedicated churches. In Roman society, men were in charge outside the home, but women were in charge within the home with responsibility for raising the children, making sure everyone was fed, etc. A man would have allowed his wife to lead home church worship. Later, when the church became more popular and dedicated buildings were used for worship, men took over.
So attitudes toward abortion, LGBTQ, and female priests aren't Biblical dogma; they're Catholic dogma. So that being said, I don't expect Pope Leo to make any changes in these areas. I do hope that he puts more emphasis on things like civil rights, working conditions, wealth inequality, and other issues Francis talked about.
SW-User
@NativePortlander1970 I thought it was a very clever move. Literal interpretation is pretty much a complete departure from reality.
