Can you please let us know how to pronounce "Prevost"? There's at least 7 or 8 ways you can say it. PRAY-voast. Pray-VOAST. PREE-voast. Pree-VOAST. PRAY-vo. Pray-VO. Pruh-VO. Pruh-VOST... The possibilities are endless!
“move aside so that Christ may remain, to make oneself small so that he may be known and glorified, to spend oneself to the utmost so that all may have the opportunity to know and love him.”
"we may see a pontificate governed not by the pope’s own preferences, but by his sense of how to achieve unity, peace, and holiness in a broadly diverse Church."
It is so wonderfully refreshing to not fear reading Catholic news.
I’ve been reflecting a lot on this (as I think many of us have haha), and I have been surprised at myself at how much relief I have felt from Leo’s pontificate. There are a lot of things I love about Francis but I have been so busy trying to push forward in obedience that I didn’t realize how much his ambiguity, lack of clarity, and harsh comments hurt me. Leo’s early words and actions have been healing in a way that I didn’t expect and I’m trying to make room for that right now.
I agree, and you said it so well. I didn't realize how much it weighed on me until the election of Pope Leo. Until these last few days, I didn't realize how much tension I had in regard to Pope Francis (I don't mean to sound dramatic). I can breathe more freely now when I see headlines about the pope.
I realized it weighed on me, but I didn't know how much until I found I was *disappointed* that the interregnum was over and we'd have to deal with a Pope again. If Leo continues as he has begun, I expect to get over that. Hopefully, quickly and thoroughly.
I have to agree with the sense of relief. What’s different for me is that I realize in retrospect how little I actually disagreed with any of Francis’s priorities, and probably often agreed with his harsher sentiments towards the sins of the faithful, but I was deeply disappointed in his governance of the Church, both in grevious ways (Rupnik) and in quotidian, as well as the church people he chose to elevate and the people he chose to shun (the JP II Institute). In other words, call me in continuity with what Francis wanted, but I was so completely sick of how he went about it, I am glad to have someone’s whose style is very different. One way to put it: a leader who doesn’t just talk about listening, but actually listens more than he talks.
That is true but I think we should also just acknowledge that he was formed in the 70’s and 80’s. Even if by and large Pope Leo has “moved past” most of the ideas from his formation, one cannot entirely escape the influence of their formation.
I know a priest who regularly celebrate the TLM yet thinks the Gather hymnal offers more authentically Catholic hymnody than the St. Michael hymnal. His ideas about music are heavily influenced by his seminary formation.
So while I think it is entirely possible that then Cardinal Prevost’s Church without an article could portend a “Sing a New Church” mentality. I am also willing to entertain that it is simply a part of his formative lexicon without conveying an on the whole agreement with the idea behind the term. Similarly, I would be not be surprised if Leo as a midwesterner apologizes for no reason in personal interactions.
Meh, I think the "Midwestern Pope" meme is overplayed and off-base. Chicago is Midwestern compared to New York and LA, it's true, but they're rude, conceited, and abrasive compared to the stereotypical Midwesterner (speaking broadly, not necessarily about His Holiness.) He's also not rural, so he's probably not going to be hunting deer and other stereotypical "country" Midwestern pursuits.
Speaking as a West Michigander, who lives closer to Chicago than to Detroit ... that's a bit harsh.
The real question is whether Pope Leo shows up to a meeting of the College of Cardinals bearing a casserole or a Jell-O salad. "By their fruits ye shall know him," and if those fruits are mostly tropical inside of a cherry gelatin base, we'll all know the memes are accurate.
That being said, I think it also depends on ethnic origin. Chicago's German, Polish, Lithuanian, Czech, etc. groups had a lot of common ground with other "white ethnic" Catholics in the Midwest. Same goes for all the German and Scandinavian Lutherans in Chicago...lots.of commonality with their kindred in Wisconsin and Minnesota. I don't know where the Chicago Irish fit into it all. But Chicago Italians being stereotypically Midwewtern? Fuhgeddaboutit!
Haha…I did not expect the last part of my comment to be the object of contention. Though in retrospect I would give my joke an overly generous C-. But I would make the joke again and I will, if only to make generally mild midwesterners engage in a fiery debate who is and who isn’t midwestern.
Pope Leo is a man and a father. Like all of our earthly fathers, he is going to say and do things at times that disappoint and confuse and frustrate us. Granted. But I so appreciate this analysis and, for me, permission to simply be hopeful and grateful, as I am so often tempted toward cynicism.
Prevost acknowledged that Francis was not always understood by Americans and that created hardship in the Church."
Gently said, and perhaps true of his non and lapsed Catholic devotees. I believe Pope Francis was understood very well by most practicing, orthodox Catholics, who were not always understood by Pope Francis, nor did he make much effort to understand us.
"Synodality", "being church" and "fellowship" as a verb never make it to my teeth; I zone out every time. Church Militant works for me.
The Synod on Synodality has been a distraction from the corruption in the hierarchy. It is my greatest hope and prayer that Pope Leo XIV will have the courage to turn to this most pressing crisis of trust and confront the impurity and financial recklessness that have created great hardship for the Church in the past few decades. I am already convinced that he possesses the humility to do so.
I also vaguely take issue with the ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo of “Francis not quite understood by Americans,” which to me is somewhat similar to the schoolyard bully’s taunt of “quit hitting yourself” when he uses your own hand to smack you.
I think there is absolutely truth to the idea that in some cases more right-wing Americans could be willfully obtuse about the better aspects of Francis’s posture on certain topics. I, for one, think Laudato Si is a shockingly good encyclical on stewardship of creation, despite the fact that it’s often painted as some kind of a Commie, eco-warrior, tree-hugger manifesto in the right-wing American media. (I say this as a three-time Trump voter who hates the EPA.)
But the fact remains that many Americans fully understood many of Francis’s messages to the lay faithful, throughout the world and in our own country, whom he pretty repeatedly castigated in deeply uncharitable, politically volatile, and pastorally painful ways. Francis is a man who once compared critical journalists to shit-eaters with a scat kink… we can certainly look up words like “coprophilia” and “coprophagia” in the dictionary.
There’s a severe lack of acknowledgment from many Church leaders that Francis made many Catholics who deeply and devotedly love the Church feel unwanted, unwelcome, and belittled with sins of omission—such as pointedly refusing to respond to requests for clarification on doctrine, allowing egregious abuses of ecclesiastical power in places like Germany, failing to discipline serial sex offenders with the right ideological leanings—and sins of commission—name-calling people who offered him spiritual bouquets of prayers as “bean counters,” labeling certain kinds of piety “rigid” or “psychologically unbalanced,” enacting punitive measures on people who prefer certain styles of worship, etc.
There’s a side of Francis that indeed was widely misunderstood. It would be nice to hear an acknowledgment from certain ecclesiastical figures that there was also a side to him that was perfectly understood, and experienced by many as spiritual cruelty.
Now that he has passed, I think that it is increasingly likely to hear more openness about how little Francis understood Catholics in America. I would not describe myself as traditionalist, and I perch very much in the political center, but even *I* felt deeply misunderstood and hurt by Francis in the ways he characterized the American church. And even when I thought he was right about something (for example, I do think there is a temptation to clericalism here born of a desire for stability and an honor-based social order), he approached the issue like a surgeon with a slotted spoon rather than a scalpel, and we're all bleeding everywhere because of it.
I imagine that Prevost in that moment was walking delicately in his wording--as many of Trump's staffers have found, one cannot be heard criticizing the boss without repercussions, and so it has to be couched in inversive and carefully-threaded language in order to communicate the idea without saying it expressly. I think the same was very true of Francis, who as far as I could tell had many, many commonalities of temperament and personality as Trump. Here I hear Prevost saying "America didn't understand Francis, and there was hurt in America because of that", but what I hear him actually communicating is, "Francis was impossible to understand for Americans, since Francis did not understand America, and America is justified in feeling hurt by Francis." But obviously he couldn't say that frankly.
I hadn’t heard the “bean counter” comment before. I googled it for context; and lo and behold, the Google AI overview cited YOUR comment in a verification that he said that. AI is actually coming the comment section of our little group 🤯
Heavens, that’s terrifying. I could have just made it up.
As things stand, I may have lightly misremembered. I definitely found a citation at Rorate Caeli for a statement he made in the first year after his election. It’s possible that whatever forum or blog I found it on back then actually used the term “bean counter” a bit sarcastically, because the quote on Rorate only mentions his complaint about counting prayers. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/pope-on-traditional-groups-pelagians.html
My initial impression is that he desires to fade into the role (obviously his own experiences will color how he responds to many things), as opposed to Francis whom often seemed very much influenced by the personality of Jorge Bergoglio.
Agreed. I was talking to a friend the other day how healing it is to see a pope who simultaneously is, 1) a missionary; 2) a canon lawyer; 3) a proponent of some authentic form of 'synodality', seemingly drawn from the patrimony of the Church and less from innovation; and 4) a pope willing to sing publicly and lead St. Peter's Square in the Regina Caeli, followed by prayers and blessings in open, public, and beautiful Latin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dfySxyifkk if you missed it).
Such traits are incompatible according to the narrative of fractiousness and division in the Church. And yet, here we are. I have true hope for first time in over a decade that healing, *real* healing, may be starting.
Thank you for this insightful analysis. I am very optimistic about our new Holy Father!
Two things grabbed my attention: "...while providing clarity on doctrinal issues." This is so very important and I believe that, with his background in canon law, and the encouragement of many bishops and cardinals, it will be a priority for Leo XIV's pontificate. The second issue (and maybe JD left it out intentionally) is regarding the level of understanding of Pope Francis by American Catholics. I do agree that misunderstanding was occasionally the case but would add that it is worth considering the other side of the equation. Pope Francis didn't seem to understand Americans as well as he might have. Why that was I do not know but it surely was hurtful at times.
This article mentions how Prevost (using his pre-regnal name here) may have “caucused” with Maradiaga, Dolan, and even Burke.
I’m curious if The Pillar (or anyone else?) has been able to verify any connections that Prevost may have made with Burke? I know an Italian source had reported even before the conclave that he was seen heading into a private meeting at Burke’s apartment, but the Catholic Register has reported that he did not.
I just think it would be interesting to know the extent to which we can confirm whether he and Burke had any kind of collegial or friendly relationship before the conclave.
In my mind, there’s a fairly wide gap between “Cardinal Maradiaga really, really pushed for Prevost,” and, “Prevost had amicable relationships with figures as diverse as Maradiaga and Burke,” if you know what I mean.
The former is almost cause for concern, frankly, but the latter is certainly a more positive bit of news.
According to Charlie Kirk, the new pope is a registered Republican. (I haven't seen anyone refute this claim yet.) And the Pope's brother is a super MAGA conservative posting a lot of based boomer memes on Facebook bashing Democrats and praising Trump.
I don't expect the new pope to be an arch-conservative, but considering he's on speaking terms with his brother, I doubt the pope is going to equate support for Trump with "Nazism". Leo might not like Trump, but at least he's familiar with where his super fans are coming from. Time will tell, but I hope that filial connection to the populist right will help Leo bring greater unity amongst Catholics.
Illinois doesn’t have party registration (I know, shocking that Charlie Kirk is wrong about something), but then-Robert Prevost voted in the Republican primaries in ‘12, ‘14 and ‘16. He didn’t vote in any party’s ‘24 primary, but voted absentee in the general.
But so what? There’s so much more going on in the world and the Church than Donald Trump. And if your criteria for any pope is him being sympathetic with your favorite politician then you’re going to be disappointed.
And to clarify how Illinois primaries work for those who don't know: you show up and ask for either the Republican or the Democrat ballot; you can only vote on one, not both. So Robert Prevost picked the Republican ballot each time, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a Republican.
I myself have voted for the party that doesn't align with me when my preferred party already had a locked-in candidate (they were incumbent or everyone else had dropped out by the time my state's primary happened). I've also voted for different parties during the general election than what I voted in the primaries.
Point is, which party's ballot you picked for an open primary is definitely not the same as party registration, and may not even correlate with your politics.
No dog in this fight, but this seems to me to be basically a contravention of what primaries are meant to represent: that the parties, membership organizations, select by elect those candidates whom they will support in an election.
If anyone can vote in your election, what does it even mean to be a party?
I guess the idea is that trying to verify that someone actually agrees with the party would be too much of a hassle. Someone could always say "sure, I was a Democrat last election, but my views have changed in the meantime and now I'm a Republican" or vice versa. Having to formally register as a party member would reduce flipping on a whim, but that also discourages voter turnout, which they don't want. And if you allowed same-day party registration at the primary, you are back to being able to just pick whichever ballot you want. About the only thing they can do is limit you to voting for one party, which is what they do.
It has become increasingly apparent that overwhelming reliance on primaries in general--whether open or closed--was a wrong turn.
Primaries, together with continual small-dollar online fundraising and the rise of populist partisan alt-media, have become a mighty force multiplier for the most toxic elements of both parties.
It is very fascinating seeing both “sides” claiming him. I see progressive and conservative pundits celebrating his election. The cardinals say they chose him to bring unity and so far that is ringing true. I hope it continues.
I'm thinking of the time they asked Pope Francis, "Who is Jorge Bergoglio?" and he said, "I am a sinner." It seems like the new pope is basically saying, "Who is Prevost?...Who cares? Focus on Jesus."
I will admit, I was a bit iff-y on the prospect of Cardinal Prevost becoming pope; I'm a B-16 kind of guy and I saw with dismay who backed Prevost the loudest. But early indications are positive. I'm now in a cautiously optimistic frame of mind.
Who knew the Easter Season could feel like Advent? That a spirit of watchful waiting and joyful expectation would rule the day?
"Along the way, we may learn relatively little about the particularities of Robert Prevost, as instead Leo XIV aims to display to the world only Jesus Christ himself."
This is what many other media outlets (intentionally?) missed, yet what it's all about, and is the most encouraging and hopeful point. The NYT's initial analysis on Robert Prevost from two days ago didn't mention Jesus Christ once, unsurprisingly.
It might be unrelated, but I've been strongly considering cancelling my NYT subscription and just funneling those extra shekels to the pillar. Brief and powerful analysis, JD.
Nice perspective. Prevost bears hope of millions of us. Without addressing his sense, I after years have zero idea what Bergoglio’s Synodality is.
Can you please let us know how to pronounce "Prevost"? There's at least 7 or 8 ways you can say it. PRAY-voast. Pray-VOAST. PREE-voast. Pree-VOAST. PRAY-vo. Pray-VO. Pruh-VO. Pruh-VOST... The possibilities are endless!
PRAY-vost is what everyone in the OSA said when I was in there. It’s Leo now!
Thanks! Is the second syllable like an "o" sound or an "aw" sound? As in, "coast" or "cost"?
Coast, toast, most, PRAY-vost
As of last Thursday, I think he pronounces it LEE-oh.
His brothers both said PREE-voast.
I'm reliably informed by a man with a polystyrene nose that it's spelt Prevost, but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove".
“move aside so that Christ may remain, to make oneself small so that he may be known and glorified, to spend oneself to the utmost so that all may have the opportunity to know and love him.”
"we may see a pontificate governed not by the pope’s own preferences, but by his sense of how to achieve unity, peace, and holiness in a broadly diverse Church."
It is so wonderfully refreshing to not fear reading Catholic news.
I’ve been reflecting a lot on this (as I think many of us have haha), and I have been surprised at myself at how much relief I have felt from Leo’s pontificate. There are a lot of things I love about Francis but I have been so busy trying to push forward in obedience that I didn’t realize how much his ambiguity, lack of clarity, and harsh comments hurt me. Leo’s early words and actions have been healing in a way that I didn’t expect and I’m trying to make room for that right now.
I agree, and you said it so well. I didn't realize how much it weighed on me until the election of Pope Leo. Until these last few days, I didn't realize how much tension I had in regard to Pope Francis (I don't mean to sound dramatic). I can breathe more freely now when I see headlines about the pope.
I realized it weighed on me, but I didn't know how much until I found I was *disappointed* that the interregnum was over and we'd have to deal with a Pope again. If Leo continues as he has begun, I expect to get over that. Hopefully, quickly and thoroughly.
It seriously feels like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. God bless Pope Leo.
I have to agree with the sense of relief. What’s different for me is that I realize in retrospect how little I actually disagreed with any of Francis’s priorities, and probably often agreed with his harsher sentiments towards the sins of the faithful, but I was deeply disappointed in his governance of the Church, both in grevious ways (Rupnik) and in quotidian, as well as the church people he chose to elevate and the people he chose to shun (the JP II Institute). In other words, call me in continuity with what Francis wanted, but I was so completely sick of how he went about it, I am glad to have someone’s whose style is very different. One way to put it: a leader who doesn’t just talk about listening, but actually listens more than he talks.
Right?! It was very hard to see a headline and not think, "What is he up to NOW?!"
Made me smile. Yes, I've been there too.
Those were the words that struck me too. Personality wise he reminds me of Benedict. I pray he leads us out of the mess we are in now.
I can't tell you, as well, how refreshing it was to hear on the video from his brother's house, "The pope did not agree to be interviewed."
"Low key lib-coded", huh? Ok.
i mean, you say "being Church," and it is what it is, my friend.
Normally the singing a new one into being part is sufficiently implied.
Should I be thinking of The Magician's Nephew?
I thought the same thing! 🤯
That is true but I think we should also just acknowledge that he was formed in the 70’s and 80’s. Even if by and large Pope Leo has “moved past” most of the ideas from his formation, one cannot entirely escape the influence of their formation.
I know a priest who regularly celebrate the TLM yet thinks the Gather hymnal offers more authentically Catholic hymnody than the St. Michael hymnal. His ideas about music are heavily influenced by his seminary formation.
So while I think it is entirely possible that then Cardinal Prevost’s Church without an article could portend a “Sing a New Church” mentality. I am also willing to entertain that it is simply a part of his formative lexicon without conveying an on the whole agreement with the idea behind the term. Similarly, I would be not be surprised if Leo as a midwesterner apologizes for no reason in personal interactions.
Meh, I think the "Midwestern Pope" meme is overplayed and off-base. Chicago is Midwestern compared to New York and LA, it's true, but they're rude, conceited, and abrasive compared to the stereotypical Midwesterner (speaking broadly, not necessarily about His Holiness.) He's also not rural, so he's probably not going to be hunting deer and other stereotypical "country" Midwestern pursuits.
Speaking as a West Michigander, who lives closer to Chicago than to Detroit ... that's a bit harsh.
The real question is whether Pope Leo shows up to a meeting of the College of Cardinals bearing a casserole or a Jell-O salad. "By their fruits ye shall know him," and if those fruits are mostly tropical inside of a cherry gelatin base, we'll all know the memes are accurate.
If there are shredded carrots in there too then we know we have the true real deal
Aren't they supposed to be in a lime gelatin base?
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
That being said, I think it also depends on ethnic origin. Chicago's German, Polish, Lithuanian, Czech, etc. groups had a lot of common ground with other "white ethnic" Catholics in the Midwest. Same goes for all the German and Scandinavian Lutherans in Chicago...lots.of commonality with their kindred in Wisconsin and Minnesota. I don't know where the Chicago Irish fit into it all. But Chicago Italians being stereotypically Midwewtern? Fuhgeddaboutit!
I'm a native West Michigander, and I approve this message.
Haha…I did not expect the last part of my comment to be the object of contention. Though in retrospect I would give my joke an overly generous C-. But I would make the joke again and I will, if only to make generally mild midwesterners engage in a fiery debate who is and who isn’t midwestern.
Pope Leo is a man and a father. Like all of our earthly fathers, he is going to say and do things at times that disappoint and confuse and frustrate us. Granted. But I so appreciate this analysis and, for me, permission to simply be hopeful and grateful, as I am so often tempted toward cynicism.
“the soft clericalism of low expectations“ hahahahaha
Prevost acknowledged that Francis was not always understood by Americans and that created hardship in the Church."
Gently said, and perhaps true of his non and lapsed Catholic devotees. I believe Pope Francis was understood very well by most practicing, orthodox Catholics, who were not always understood by Pope Francis, nor did he make much effort to understand us.
"Synodality", "being church" and "fellowship" as a verb never make it to my teeth; I zone out every time. Church Militant works for me.
The Synod on Synodality has been a distraction from the corruption in the hierarchy. It is my greatest hope and prayer that Pope Leo XIV will have the courage to turn to this most pressing crisis of trust and confront the impurity and financial recklessness that have created great hardship for the Church in the past few decades. I am already convinced that he possesses the humility to do so.
I also vaguely take issue with the ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo of “Francis not quite understood by Americans,” which to me is somewhat similar to the schoolyard bully’s taunt of “quit hitting yourself” when he uses your own hand to smack you.
I think there is absolutely truth to the idea that in some cases more right-wing Americans could be willfully obtuse about the better aspects of Francis’s posture on certain topics. I, for one, think Laudato Si is a shockingly good encyclical on stewardship of creation, despite the fact that it’s often painted as some kind of a Commie, eco-warrior, tree-hugger manifesto in the right-wing American media. (I say this as a three-time Trump voter who hates the EPA.)
But the fact remains that many Americans fully understood many of Francis’s messages to the lay faithful, throughout the world and in our own country, whom he pretty repeatedly castigated in deeply uncharitable, politically volatile, and pastorally painful ways. Francis is a man who once compared critical journalists to shit-eaters with a scat kink… we can certainly look up words like “coprophilia” and “coprophagia” in the dictionary.
There’s a severe lack of acknowledgment from many Church leaders that Francis made many Catholics who deeply and devotedly love the Church feel unwanted, unwelcome, and belittled with sins of omission—such as pointedly refusing to respond to requests for clarification on doctrine, allowing egregious abuses of ecclesiastical power in places like Germany, failing to discipline serial sex offenders with the right ideological leanings—and sins of commission—name-calling people who offered him spiritual bouquets of prayers as “bean counters,” labeling certain kinds of piety “rigid” or “psychologically unbalanced,” enacting punitive measures on people who prefer certain styles of worship, etc.
There’s a side of Francis that indeed was widely misunderstood. It would be nice to hear an acknowledgment from certain ecclesiastical figures that there was also a side to him that was perfectly understood, and experienced by many as spiritual cruelty.
Now that he has passed, I think that it is increasingly likely to hear more openness about how little Francis understood Catholics in America. I would not describe myself as traditionalist, and I perch very much in the political center, but even *I* felt deeply misunderstood and hurt by Francis in the ways he characterized the American church. And even when I thought he was right about something (for example, I do think there is a temptation to clericalism here born of a desire for stability and an honor-based social order), he approached the issue like a surgeon with a slotted spoon rather than a scalpel, and we're all bleeding everywhere because of it.
I imagine that Prevost in that moment was walking delicately in his wording--as many of Trump's staffers have found, one cannot be heard criticizing the boss without repercussions, and so it has to be couched in inversive and carefully-threaded language in order to communicate the idea without saying it expressly. I think the same was very true of Francis, who as far as I could tell had many, many commonalities of temperament and personality as Trump. Here I hear Prevost saying "America didn't understand Francis, and there was hurt in America because of that", but what I hear him actually communicating is, "Francis was impossible to understand for Americans, since Francis did not understand America, and America is justified in feeling hurt by Francis." But obviously he couldn't say that frankly.
I hadn’t heard the “bean counter” comment before. I googled it for context; and lo and behold, the Google AI overview cited YOUR comment in a verification that he said that. AI is actually coming the comment section of our little group 🤯
Heavens, that’s terrifying. I could have just made it up.
As things stand, I may have lightly misremembered. I definitely found a citation at Rorate Caeli for a statement he made in the first year after his election. It’s possible that whatever forum or blog I found it on back then actually used the term “bean counter” a bit sarcastically, because the quote on Rorate only mentions his complaint about counting prayers. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/pope-on-traditional-groups-pelagians.html
My initial impression is that he desires to fade into the role (obviously his own experiences will color how he responds to many things), as opposed to Francis whom often seemed very much influenced by the personality of Jorge Bergoglio.
Great article. Was quite skeptical of the guy at first, but happy that most likely my skepticism was totally wrong!
If he is able to "code switch" to different audiences, respecting their point of view while remaining the same person himself, so much the better.
Agreed. I was talking to a friend the other day how healing it is to see a pope who simultaneously is, 1) a missionary; 2) a canon lawyer; 3) a proponent of some authentic form of 'synodality', seemingly drawn from the patrimony of the Church and less from innovation; and 4) a pope willing to sing publicly and lead St. Peter's Square in the Regina Caeli, followed by prayers and blessings in open, public, and beautiful Latin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dfySxyifkk if you missed it).
Such traits are incompatible according to the narrative of fractiousness and division in the Church. And yet, here we are. I have true hope for first time in over a decade that healing, *real* healing, may be starting.
Thank you for this insightful analysis. I am very optimistic about our new Holy Father!
Two things grabbed my attention: "...while providing clarity on doctrinal issues." This is so very important and I believe that, with his background in canon law, and the encouragement of many bishops and cardinals, it will be a priority for Leo XIV's pontificate. The second issue (and maybe JD left it out intentionally) is regarding the level of understanding of Pope Francis by American Catholics. I do agree that misunderstanding was occasionally the case but would add that it is worth considering the other side of the equation. Pope Francis didn't seem to understand Americans as well as he might have. Why that was I do not know but it surely was hurtful at times.
This article mentions how Prevost (using his pre-regnal name here) may have “caucused” with Maradiaga, Dolan, and even Burke.
I’m curious if The Pillar (or anyone else?) has been able to verify any connections that Prevost may have made with Burke? I know an Italian source had reported even before the conclave that he was seen heading into a private meeting at Burke’s apartment, but the Catholic Register has reported that he did not.
I just think it would be interesting to know the extent to which we can confirm whether he and Burke had any kind of collegial or friendly relationship before the conclave.
In my mind, there’s a fairly wide gap between “Cardinal Maradiaga really, really pushed for Prevost,” and, “Prevost had amicable relationships with figures as diverse as Maradiaga and Burke,” if you know what I mean.
The former is almost cause for concern, frankly, but the latter is certainly a more positive bit of news.
According to Charlie Kirk, the new pope is a registered Republican. (I haven't seen anyone refute this claim yet.) And the Pope's brother is a super MAGA conservative posting a lot of based boomer memes on Facebook bashing Democrats and praising Trump.
I don't expect the new pope to be an arch-conservative, but considering he's on speaking terms with his brother, I doubt the pope is going to equate support for Trump with "Nazism". Leo might not like Trump, but at least he's familiar with where his super fans are coming from. Time will tell, but I hope that filial connection to the populist right will help Leo bring greater unity amongst Catholics.
Illinois doesn’t have party registration (I know, shocking that Charlie Kirk is wrong about something), but then-Robert Prevost voted in the Republican primaries in ‘12, ‘14 and ‘16. He didn’t vote in any party’s ‘24 primary, but voted absentee in the general.
But so what? There’s so much more going on in the world and the Church than Donald Trump. And if your criteria for any pope is him being sympathetic with your favorite politician then you’re going to be disappointed.
And to clarify how Illinois primaries work for those who don't know: you show up and ask for either the Republican or the Democrat ballot; you can only vote on one, not both. So Robert Prevost picked the Republican ballot each time, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a Republican.
I myself have voted for the party that doesn't align with me when my preferred party already had a locked-in candidate (they were incumbent or everyone else had dropped out by the time my state's primary happened). I've also voted for different parties during the general election than what I voted in the primaries.
Point is, which party's ballot you picked for an open primary is definitely not the same as party registration, and may not even correlate with your politics.
No dog in this fight, but this seems to me to be basically a contravention of what primaries are meant to represent: that the parties, membership organizations, select by elect those candidates whom they will support in an election.
If anyone can vote in your election, what does it even mean to be a party?
Like, if i can amble over to the episcopalian church down the street and vote on who should be their diocesan bishop, something is not right, right?
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
I guess the idea is that trying to verify that someone actually agrees with the party would be too much of a hassle. Someone could always say "sure, I was a Democrat last election, but my views have changed in the meantime and now I'm a Republican" or vice versa. Having to formally register as a party member would reduce flipping on a whim, but that also discourages voter turnout, which they don't want. And if you allowed same-day party registration at the primary, you are back to being able to just pick whichever ballot you want. About the only thing they can do is limit you to voting for one party, which is what they do.
It has become increasingly apparent that overwhelming reliance on primaries in general--whether open or closed--was a wrong turn.
Primaries, together with continual small-dollar online fundraising and the rise of populist partisan alt-media, have become a mighty force multiplier for the most toxic elements of both parties.
It is very fascinating seeing both “sides” claiming him. I see progressive and conservative pundits celebrating his election. The cardinals say they chose him to bring unity and so far that is ringing true. I hope it continues.
I'm thinking of the time they asked Pope Francis, "Who is Jorge Bergoglio?" and he said, "I am a sinner." It seems like the new pope is basically saying, "Who is Prevost?...Who cares? Focus on Jesus."
"Who is Prevost?...Who cares? Focus on Jesus." Great line; wish I'd thought of it!
I will admit, I was a bit iff-y on the prospect of Cardinal Prevost becoming pope; I'm a B-16 kind of guy and I saw with dismay who backed Prevost the loudest. But early indications are positive. I'm now in a cautiously optimistic frame of mind.
Who knew the Easter Season could feel like Advent? That a spirit of watchful waiting and joyful expectation would rule the day?
"Along the way, we may learn relatively little about the particularities of Robert Prevost, as instead Leo XIV aims to display to the world only Jesus Christ himself."
This is what many other media outlets (intentionally?) missed, yet what it's all about, and is the most encouraging and hopeful point. The NYT's initial analysis on Robert Prevost from two days ago didn't mention Jesus Christ once, unsurprisingly.
It might be unrelated, but I've been strongly considering cancelling my NYT subscription and just funneling those extra shekels to the pillar. Brief and powerful analysis, JD.