Pope Leo and Latin America’s axis of authoritarians

There are several pressing diplomatic issues in the pope’s adoptive episcopal region of Latin America

As Leo XIV settles into his role as pope, it is expected that he will not make radical changes in the Vatican at first.

Pope Leo XIV. Image Credit: Vatican Media.

However, diplomacy has its own rhythm, and circumstances might force the pope to act internationally sooner rather than later.

There are several pressing diplomatic issues in the pope’s adoptive episcopal region of Latin America. Leo’s actions in each of those situations could soon offer some insight into his diplomatic style and priorities.

—

Latin America has three governments widely considered to be left-wing dictatorships: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

Engaging with dictatorships is always a delicate balancing act. Maintaining too close a relationship with the regime could give the appearance of sympathy, or even complicity. But speaking out too boldly could result in persecution for the local Church in retribution.

Pope Francis approached each of these countries differently, with approaches that were both praised for helping foster peace for the local Church and criticized for what was locally viewed as complicity with authoritarian regimes.

Pope Leo XIV will now have to decide whether to continue the approaches of his predecessor or to make a fresh start.

He has the firsthand knowledge needed to inform those decisions.

As a bishop in Peru, Prevost received thousands of Venezuelan refugees fleeing hunger and persecution. As the Augustinian superior general, he oversaw the return of the Augustinians to Cuba in 2006. As the prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, he navigated the complexities of the Nicaraguan episcopal landscape.

How the pope handles these three countries, each with their unique challenges, will likely shed light on how much the Leonine approach to diplomacy with autocratic regimes will diverge from that of Francis.

—

Pope Francis was not shy about showing his friendship with Cuban regime officials, with whom he maintained an open line of communication. He once said he enjoyed a “human relationship” with Cuban dictator Raúl Castro.

The thought was that collaboration helped the Vatican broker diplomatic deals between Cuba and Western countries — such as the restoration of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba — and that it would bring relative peace for the local Church.

This tactic was successful in winning some goodwill for the Church.

However, it seemed that in the latter years of his pontificate, the Cuban regime was less open to listening to Pope Francis.

In June 2023, Francis received Miguel Díaz-Canel, president of Cuba, in a 40-minute private audience. In this audience, according to reports, the pope spoke with Díaz-Canel about the possible release of the more than 1,000 political prisoners in Cuba, mostly for participating in the protests that began in July 2021 on the island.

But the attempted mediation by Francis came to nothing, and the vast majority of these political prisoners remain in Cuban prisons.

Moreover, the cost of maintaining a friendly relationship with the Cuban government has been the Vatican failing to raise its voice against the human rights violations in the country, at a time when many priests are being watched or threatened by Cuban authorities.

While the Vatican has remained silent, threats and restrictions against local Catholics have increased in recent years, and the Cuban government has been steadily moving up Open Doors’ World List of Religious Persecution — from 61st place in 2020 to 51st in 2021 and 37th in 2022.

Thus, Pope Leo might reconsider the détente with the Cuban regime and instead start speaking out in favor of local human rights activists and persecuted Catholics.

—

The Vatican under Francis largely remained silent about the persecution against the Church in Nicaragua, out of fear that words from the pope would only make the situation for local Catholics even worse.

Francis did escalate his rhetoric toward the end of his pontificate – in a 2023 interview, he compared dictator Daniel Ortega to Hitler, and in late 2024, he wrote a pastoral letter to the Church in the country.

In Nicaragua, the Vatican’s silence didn’t improve the situation for the Church, as around 20% of the country’s priests have been exiled, including almost half of its bishops, while Catholic universities, radio and TV stations, and even seminaries have been confiscated.

But it’s possible that stronger words from the Vatican could make the situation even worse, and could threaten the presence of the four active bishops who still remain in the country.

However, the biggest question in Nicaragua is its episcopal appointments. Pope Francis resisted the Nicaraguan regime’s push for bishops who were more friendly to the government, leaving the episcopal situation in the country at a stalemate.

At some point, the Vatican will have to appoint a successor to Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes of Managua and Bishop Carlos Herrera of Jinotega, as both are already 76 years old.

But if such an appointment is not to the liking of the Nicaraguan regime, the bishop appointed might follow Bishop Rolando Álvarez into exile.

Pope Leo will have to decide his diplomatic strategy in Nicaragua. Of course, one option is to bide his time – Ortega is 79 years old and suffers from poor health. His wife and heir apparent, Rosario Murillo, is not in great shape either. Therefore, Pope Leo might choose to play the long game and see if the problem resolves itself with time.

—

In Venezuela, Pope Francis resorted to a relative silence and a position labeled by Cardinal Pietro Parolin as “positive neutrality,” which sought to sustain the Church’s role as an informal mediator between the government and the opposition.

These mediation efforts proved unsuccessful, however, mostly due to a lack of goodwill from the dictatorship.

And the Vatican’s stance leaves the Venezuelan bishops, who are among the most outspoken critics of the government, in an uncomfortable position.

Still, Francis’ prudence in Venezuela has allowed the Church to operate with almost total freedom in the country. Despite tensions and occasional threats, most priests preach about the situation in the country every Sunday and on social media, and bishops speak quite plainly about the country’s situation in their homilies and pastoral letters, although more sparingly.

And while the Venezuelan government vetoed many episcopal appointments for years – the local concordat allows it to do so – it started to allow new bishops again about a year and a half ago.

Significantly, none of the appointments have been friendly to the dictatorship, although local observers and Vatican sources have suggested that Francis initially wanted to appoint some bishops who openly opposed the Maduro regime to higher positions.

Pope Leo may be hesitant to undo these victories. Too many statements from the Vatican, or even an open denunciation of the dictatorship, might risk the careful balancing act crafted during the Francis pontificate and threaten new episcopal appointments in the country.

On the other hand, the human rights situation in the country hasn’t improved, with thousands of political prisoners, widely acknowledged electoral fraud in last year’s presidential election, and a crackdown on political activists and journalists, which led to hundreds of them being exiled after the election.

Continuing Francis’ silence on the local human rights situation could lead to perceptions of indifference in the Vatican – a particularly strong contrast with the local bishops who are among the most vocal opponents of the regime.

The Church in Venezuela often polls as the most popular institution in the country. While most Venezuelans are only cultural Catholics, love for the Church and the clergy is high.

One of the reasons for this is the Venezuelan Church’s willingness to stand up against the various dictatorships the country has seen since the 20^th century.

Pope Leo may weigh the perception of the Church, and the implications of Vatican silence, in his diplomatic decisions surrounding the country.