The election of Leo XIV raises many unknowns about the immediate future of the Church. From the outset, it must be said that the cardinals have not taken into account some unwritten practices in the history of the Holy See, such as the fact that two popes from religious orders are rarely elected successively—Bergoglio was a Jesuit and Prevost, an Augustinian—or that, to better safeguard the Church's independence, a pope is not chosen in a double capacity. However, given the speed of the conclave, it seems clear that this is no coincidence and that a broad consensus must have been forged around Cardinal Robert Prevost in the prior meetings.
The first major uncertainty affects the continuation of the reforms already initiated. Prevost undoubtedly has a track record that Francis liked. A priest who has never been bishop of a major see, but rather of the obscure diocese of Chiclayo, in northern Peru. He is well-versed in the reality of the Latin American Church, speaks Spanish and English, and, due to his dual nationality, is aware of the serious problem facing Catholicism throughout the continent with the spread of Pentecostal denominations linked to very conservative political parties.
It should be noted that Peru was one of the countries of origin of liberation theology, so influential throughout the Americas, and where the repression of this movement by John Paul II and Benedict XVI was most strongly felt. But there is also a strong presence of ultraconservative groups. The Archbishop of Lima, Cardinal Cipriani, was sanctioned by Francis for an accusation of sexual abuse, and one of Francis's last actions as pope was the drastic decision to dissolve the Sodalicio de Vida Cristiana (Sodalicio of Christian Life) due to the psychological and sexual abuse that was occurring. Leo XIV, then, comes from a Church, the Peruvian Church, which has been subjected to very strong internal tensions in recent years and, in fact, has acted as apostolic administrator of Peruvian dioceses affected by serious problems. It remains to be seen how this will affect his actions.
In turn, a few years ago Francis removed Prevost from his remote diocese to Rome, where he has served as prefect of the dicastery for bishops, one of the most influential bodies in the Curia. He therefore lacks much experience in the intricate Vatican world, which has been highly contested in recent years, but he is by no means a novice prelate who is unaware of the pitfalls he can encounter.
Be that as it may, it seems clear that the line of a Catholic Church will be maintained in which the primary concerns of European Catholics—liturgical renewal, sexual morality, the role of women, etc.—will probably not be the priority of the Holy See. And it is also reasonable to expect that the insistence on a missionary Church, or, as Francis said, "one that goes out," will persist.
However, the non-verbal language of such an iconic moment did not echo this message: Leo XIV appeared in the cumbersome traditional papal vestments, when he had the opportunity to create a small "tradition" following the austerity of Francis's first address. A sign of independence? A desire to build bridges with more conservative groups? Nor did Prevost choose the name Francis II or John XXIV, as some journalists had speculated. Like Benedict XVI, he opted for a somewhat anachronistic name, but one deeply rooted in Rome. At the same time, he becomes the heir to one of the few reformist popes of the 20th century. Leo XIII shaped the so-called "social doctrine of the Church," which has been the basis for criticism of capitalism in the name of the Gospels and the defense of workers' rights.
The second major question at this conclave was geopolitical: how will the Catholic Church react to the international uproar caused by Donald Trump? Open or potential wars are multiplying, and voices calling for rearmament are heard everywhere. International mediation and victim aid organizations are deliberately banished. In this sense, Leo XIV did give a very clear signal in his first speech, which focused heavily on the concept of peace, the word he repeated most, and more specifically, he spoke of an "unarmed peace."
Now, everything seems to indicate that the planet is heading towards a harsh cold war between China, a country where Christians are severely persecuted, and the United States, where an ultra-conservative Catholicism, embodied by Vice President J.D. Vance, is gaining strength and openly supporting the Party's policies. So the conclave's gamble is risky: despite his international experience, will a Chicago-born pope be able to maintain the credibility of Catholicism in a media world where Trump and his followers have very powerful loudspeakers? And, speculating even further, have the cardinals elected him to be the moral leader that doesn't exist in the United States before the president of his own country?
