It has been 50 days since Pope Leo XIV was elected, but the world does not have a clear picture of him yet. Some cardinals and professional Vatican analysts seem to be getting a more detailed profile of the Pope (one which is apparently more orthodox than many initially had expected), but the world at large does not view him as a new Pope Benedict XVI to be opposed vigorously (yet).
This might be starting to change with the Pope reaffirming the importance of priestly celibacy and the role of bishops in ensuring unity and swimming against the tide, but, overall, the new Pope has taken a far more restraint approach when it comes to dealing with the media, and does not engage in a magisterium of (alleged) private conversations.
Pope Leo’s priorities and stances as Pope are only becoming clear very gradually. The synod study groups meant to deal with controversial issues will now report in December rather than June and their non-binding character has been emphasized, while Andrea Grillo, the ghost writer of Traditionis Custodes, has been thrown under the bus by his own university. Radical liberalism might be quietly getting shelved. For now, however, the people Pope Leo choses to promote (or not) are the clearest and most concrete indication of what this new pontificate means for the future of the Church.
Unclear signs and slow curial progress
Personnel is policy and the Pope has been very slow in making big appointments. So far his only real noticeable appointment was Tiziana Merletti as the new secretary of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, filling a vacancy left by Pope Francis. While this resulted in a lot of talk about the new Pope appointing a female religious as secretary for the Dicastery for consecrated life, with suggestions that it indicated a desire to continue the reforms of Francis, this appointment was neither revolutionary nor does say a lot about the new Pope.
The appointment was likely already in the pipeline when the new Pope took office and, more importantly, since Pope Francis had already appointed a woman as prefect, appointing a bishop to serve as secretary under a female prefect would in many ways have been even more problematic. While appointing a female secretary was framed as progressive, if the Pope had a bishop become the explicit subordinate of a non-ordained person (in this case of a woman) the upheaval would have been far greater. Pope Leo unfortunately was confronted with a catch 22 and chose the less horrible option.
More meaningful, however, is his very recent appointment of nineteen new ordinary members to the dicastery. A majority (ten) are bishops (including five cardinals) and a supermajority (fourteen) are men. In spite of this, some progressive commentators have tried to spin this as a revolutionary move. This is strange, since Francis appointed seven women to this dicastery in 2019 as part of a new set of appointments, while our new Pope added only five, a little more than a quarter of the new membership.
More importantly, Francis made those appointments before he enacted his new curial constitution Praedicate Evangelium. This was not a significant legal problem, since not all ordinary members of dicasteries have to be bishops, which is why ordinary priests and male religious have served as members of various dicasteries throughout the years. Only prefects and full secretaries traditionally had to be bishops, as they are the ones providing binding documents on behalf of the Pope. The reason that curial prefects traditionally always had to be bishops is the connection between holy orders and authority of governance in the Church.
Pope Francis blurred and undermined this canonical tradition with Praedicate Evangelium without clarifying the full implications. The weakening of episcopal authority and the usurpation of authority by non-bishops is the issue, not the appointment of women by itself, when it involves positions non-bishops have held for a long time. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the dicasteries had female undersecretaries under both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The new Pope is not expanding their proportional presence.
More important is the fact that most of the bishops and priests who were appointed are rather orthodox. Three out of five of the new cardinal members are moderately to strongly conservative; Marengo and Pizzaballa are both very popular amongst conservatives and Cardinal Spengler from Brazil in not actually progressive, but a moderate who at the end of last year suddenly seemed to turn more conservative, opposing a new Amazon rite and praising the apostolic tradition of priestly celibacy, which was even noted by Lifesitenews. The inclusion of the 75 year old Cardinal Roche suggests Pope Leo isn’t going to engage in a rapid purge, but will gradually retire the aging, instead.
The five other bishops are all from the peripheries, including three from Africa and one from Uzbekistan, while one male religious is African too; as such the marginalization of African clergy in Rome might be over soon.
Beyond this, the real important game-changing appointments, new curial prefects, and cardinals, still have to be made. Specifically, a new prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops is yet to be appointed and it remains to be seen whether the new Pope will appoint women or laypeople to prefect positions, traditionally reserved for bishops, or not.
Filtering bishops’ appointments
For now, the appointment of new bishops is one of the most useful clues for understanding the course of this pontificate. Pope Leo XIV has gradually resumed the appointment of new bishops, even without a new prefect at this dicastery, holding a meeting with his old dicastery a few days after his election.
When Cardinal Prevost served as a prefect, he had to deal with excessive interference by Pope Francis, the secretary of the dicastery and Francis loyalist Montanari, who was treated as a pro-prefect by the Pope, and Cardinal allies of Francis -- who bypassed both Prevost and the nuncio in their country, such as Cupich, Tobin, and Omella. There was even an informal network of progressive cardinals in Spain which bypassed the conservative nuncio and provided Pope Francis with more liberal candidates who could be made bishop.
Now we are seeing what kind of appointments reflect the new Pope freed from these networks, something we got a slight glimpse of while Francis was in the hospital and dying and unable to meet with the likes of Cupich. The now Pope Leo has swiftly dismantled the network of progressive Spanish cardinals. This was first reported on by Infovaticana and has now confirmed by The Pillar.
This is not minor. It shows Pope Leo had a fundamentally different outlook from the Pope he served as a prefect, that he rejects an overly personalist or despotic exercise of papal authority, and that he has respect for traditional institutions and authority. Additionally, it shows he is rather distant from progressive cardinals who were key Francis allies, and favors more conservative bishops on average. He is rumoured to plan to appoint a new conservative nuncio to Spain. Meanwhile, Omella seems to have let go of his dream of getting a handpicked protégé to succeed him as Archbishop of Barcelona.
In the United States, Pope Leo appointed four new bishops: two auxiliary bishops made diocesan bishops, and two priests being made bishops. None are doctrinal liberals in the mold of Cupich, Tobin, Stowe, or McElroy (although this has not prevented some Catholics from framing the appointments as progressive as three of the four bishops were foreign born, even though they are apparently doctrinally orthodox).
In spite of their orthodoxy, one of the bishop appointees, has been spun by liberal commentators as a progressive activist, bishop Pham in San Diego, who succeeded radical Cardinal McElroy, with whom he had previously served as an auxiliary. He was also friendly with the FSSP, homeschoolers, and more critical of homosexuality, all in clear contrast to McElroy. Nonetheless, he is framed as a progressive because he has taken a strong stance in favor of migrants facing deportation, showing up with other clergy to defend them in court. Pham was himself a legal refugee who became an American citizen after escaping communism. His stance is mostly in line with conservative American bishops such as Broglio and Gomez, the former viewed as an anti-Francis bishop and the latter as spitefully passed over for the cardinalate. A conservative bishop who is also a pro-migrant activist isn’t an unusual thing in the USA or much of the global Church.
The controversial Mackinlay in Australia
Only one episcopal appointment that has proven truly controversial is the appointment of bishop Mackinlay as the new Archbishop of Brisbane and successor to Mark Coleridge. Some specific context for this appointment is therefore useful to have.
Like Coleridge, Mackinlay rose to prominence in 2012, in the final phase of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, initially defending the Church against anti-Catholic biases and pointing out that the sexual revolution had promoted paedophilia during the 60s and 70s, and pushes for lowering the age of consent. As Coleridge, he didn’t instantly turn progressive under Francis. He played a moderate role for years during the contentious Fifth Plenary Council of Australia, in which he served as vice-president, and the Australian bishops trusted him to represent them on the Synod on Synodality in Rome where he even served on the drafting committee for the final document.
Then, something changed around 2022. Liberal laity and women staged a walkout during the final phase of the Fifth Plenary Council, when the final decrees were not supportive enough of female deacons. This was partially rewarded with a compromise which still left the final decision with Rome. Yet, Mackinlay ended up expressing dismay that not more was done to advance female deacons. In Rome he aligned himself with the moderate progressives, coming out to support Fiducia Supplicans while claiming doctrine and teaching was clear and would not change. Yet again, in Germany he attended a Synodal Way session as a guest and supported the blessing of gay unions (in defiance of the 2021 CDF Responsum), as long as it was not like blessing a marriage, and took a soft stance on gender ideology, too. The same man: A centrist in Australia, a centre-leftist in Rome, and a leftist in Germany, so it seems...
Yet, while lowkey controversial in the wider Church in recent years, he seems to have retained the support of a significant segment of the Australian episcopate. Coleridge himself is happy with him as a successor and may well have pushed for his appointment. Additionally, he is said to be a skilled administrator. The nuncio to Australia, Charles Daniel Balvo (appointed by Pope Francis in 2022), has more liberal leanings, which he displayed while serving as nuncio to Kenya, when he expressed agreement with Obama and disagreement on the local church on the matter of ‘LGBT rights’. As such, chances are strong that Mackinlay was at the top of the terna sent to Rome by the nuncio, and Pope Leo XIV simply approved the decision.
Pope Leo allowing the promotion of this top contender to go through is likely little more than a storm in a teacup for multiple reasons: 1. Since he replaces a similar moderate turned moderate-liberal bishop, little to nothing is changed for the worst 2. He is not very controversial in Australia itself (unlike other bishops such as bishop Long who supported LGBT ideology in schools), 3. Since he enjoys the trust of many Australian bishops it’s unlikely to cause tensions down under. Another Australian Archbishop appointed by the Pope, Anthony Ireland, appears perfectly orthodox.
All other appointments so far have either been uncontroversial or shown to be apparently orthodox. The hit and miss nominations from the final years of Francis are becoming semi-consistent hits with only the occasional miss, while the traditional role of nuncios is being restored. But Mackinlay remains a problem and a worrying sign.
Conclusion: Subtle signs
While faced with more immediate dilemmas than previous popes, Pope Leo seems intent on not making too many enemies early on, without being soft and timid. At the age of 69 and with good health, he probably has the time to implement a gradual return to normalcy, if that is what he wants. He might desire somewhat of a balance with regards to his future curial appointments.
Unfortunately, after the previous pontificate, everything the new Pope does risks being put under a microscope. Meanwhile, progressives are struggling to admit that maybe (just perhaps) the liberal carnival might be over. Like a puzzle, the pontificate of Pope Leo will only become clear to most people when enough pieces fall into places. Until then, one needs a sharp eye to not get lost in peripheral details.
