This is the third of several analyses written for Rorate by our contributor Serre Verweij on Leo XIV's first year.
Series: The First Year of Leo XIV
III - Leo and the Radical Modernists
[Part I - Leo and the Germans.]
There were some rumours during the conclave that Prevost could be a candidate more radical than Parolin. So far, Pope Leo has acted completely the opposite. While extremists on both sides try to frame him as one who will consolidate ‘the revolution begun by Francis’ chances of this are decreasing by the day.
It does not look like Prevost was the progressive dark horse. There have been many concrete cases and doctrinal disputes that help show the new Pope was always rather far removed from most, if not all, of the radical cardinals.
Besides the fact that Prevost’s only recorded role in dealing with the synodal process was helping Parolin and conservative curial prefects in confronting them and threatening with canonical sanctions, there have been multiple other indications that he opposes the (radical) progressives, from his stance on controversies involving bishops to his own conflicts in Peru.
Woelki
The first issue of contention is Cardinal Woelki, the Archbishop of Cologne. This connects somewhat to Prevost’s opposition to the German Synodal Way (something Marx unconvincingly tried to deny as we described in a previous article). Progressive German bishops, activist groups and the secular press had been trying to force Cardinal Woelki out of office, because he had clumsily given the mere appearance of trying to cover up abuse. \
These attacks are in spite of the fact that Woelki was one of the few German prelates to have actually taken appropriate steps against abusers, and that it was revealed that progressives, including Marx, had actually been either inactive or complicit in allowing abuse to continue. Since these progressive bishops blamed their failures and sins on Catholic tradition and weaponized it to pursue modernist goals they were praised for their repentance and given a second chance by the secular media. Marx symbolically offered his resignation, which of course Francis turned down; yet, Woelki suffered far worse attacks with his position becoming uncertain.
It is pretty obvious why progressives would want Woelki gone so badly. He has been a consistent powerful opponent of the Synodal Way and everything it stands for. He controls a powerful and rich archdiocese. If they can destroy him, opposition to the synodal agenda in Germany itself will largely collapse and Rome will have a lot harder time stopping the Germans.
Hollerich actually sided with the Germans in this regard, suggesting Cardinal Woelki should resign over mere appearances, or ‘loss of trust’, even if he did not do anything wrong. Eventually, at the beginning of March 2022, Woelki was pressured into offering his resignation. Unlike with Marx, the Pope neither rejected nor accepted it, leaving him in limbo. The resignation lost its canonical validity after three months, but Francis apparently thought otherwise, as he indicated in an interview later in June:
“I asked him to write a resignation letter. He did and gave it to me. And he wrote an apology letter to the diocese. I left him in his place to see what would happen, but I have his resignation in hand.”
Now, with Pope Leo in charge, Woelki has suddenly felt able to state outright in an interview that his offer of resignation is no longer valid. He also said he felt understood by Prevost during the meetings he had with then prefect Prevost in Rome. He seems no longer to be afraid, even though he had neither expected Pope Leo XIV to be elected, nor that the conclave would be this short.
Supporting Woelki and supporting the German Synodal Way are incompatible. Cardinal Woelki has continued his opposition to the German synodal committee with a few other orthodox bishops under the new Pope.
Pope Leo’s support for Cardinal Woelki not only further confirms his opposition to the German agenda, but also distances him from the radical modernist Hollerich; and the fact that he is not actively keeping Woelki in uncertainty makes him more friendly towards the orthodox bishops than Francis was, as well.
Hollerich, Grech and synodality
Many cardinals and clergy, both conservative and progressive, have commented on the new Pope and expressed their hopes/wishes regarding the new pontificate. Cardinals Duka from Czech, Goh from Singapore and Doland from the US stand out on the right and figures like Marx, Hollerich and Grech on the left. There are subtle but noticeable differences.
Conservative praise and hopeful expectations were expressed early on and unambiguously, and several of the cardinals had personally spoken with Prevost about matters that concerned them.
In a recent interview with Avvenire Hollerich claimed support of Pope Leo for a general generic synodality, based on his participation in the synodal assembly in Rome. Interestingly enough, while asserting Pope Leo would have a lot in common with Francis, he framed Francis as not doctrinally different from Benedict, even though Hollerich in the past presented Francis as a progressive providing opportunity for doctrinal change and openly said how he preferred him to Pope Benedict.
This suggests a scaling back of revolutionary expectations under the new Pope. This was further confirmed when Hollerich, while denying Pope Leo would fully rescind Fiducia Supplicans, did not deny he would ‘reinterpret’ it. For Hollerich, Fiducia Supplicans did not even go far enough, as he had on different occasions expressed support both for some form of liturgical or ritual blessing for same sex coupes and a re-evaluation of the sinfulness of homosexual acts.
Perhaps most telling was that Hollerich specifically spoke of Grech ‘helping’ the Pope to implement synodality properly. Shortly after that, Grech suddenly provided a letter (co-signed by his undersecretaries of the synod) in which they explained synodality to the Pope (who had participated in the synod) and expressed expectations regarding how he’d implement synodality, with an offer of ‘help’. This odd and confusing letter led The New Daily Compass to accuse Hollerich of constraining the Pope and Grech for exerting illegitimate political pressure.
So far, Pope Leo has confirmed the implementation phase (necessary to avoid chaos) and the ecclesial assembly in some form, though what it will mean concretely is currently unclear. While Pope Leo sometimes uses Francis’ synodal rhetoric, it has been given little concrete (revolutionary) meaning and both the momentum and enthusiasm amongst progressives have dimmed noticeably.
Cardinal Castillo Mattasoglio: Prevost radical leftist opponent in Peru?
When Prevost’s candidacy gained momentum and even when he was elected Pope Leo, little analysis was provided on what his relationship or stance was on the current archbishop of Lima, Castillo Mattasoglio, one of the most radical modernist cardinals in the whole Catholic Church.
He has pushed a revision of Humanae Vitae, suggested the Church should stay out of the fight against legal abortion, yet tried to get the Church allied to far left politics and even criticized Pope Francis for suggesting we’d encounter Christ at the altar and not through social action. He is a radical liberation theologian who has supported radicals who support gender ideology, homosexuality, contraception, IVF and abortion at the pontifical university.
He turned 75 a few months ago and has recently come under fire for grave mismanagement of his Archdiocese, now with Leo XIV as Pope. The Pillar has provided multiple excellent articles on the scandals in the Archdiocese of Lima, from the archbishop’s financial mismanagement to his rotation of judicial vicars and destruction of the archdiocesan seminary.
Most important, however, has been their reporting on how Mattasoglio protected a sexual abuser priest who exploited a nun and how he enabled an abuse culture within the seminary, punishing seminarians who spoke out. After their reporting, the accused priest even sought laicization.
A beleaguered Mattasoglio chose to defend himself during a sermon. Now he claims to have Pope Leo’s support to have the full extension, and stay on till he is ‘at least’ 80. This so far has not been backed up by any reliable source, however, and one fellow Vatican analyst described these as precisely the words of an Archbishop whose resisting stepping down.
What is useful about this whole affair for understanding Pope Leo is what his connection was to the radical Mattasoglio while he was bishop in Peru. According to three different priests from Lima that The Pillar spoke to, it was one of mutual opposition and disagreement. Not a single source they spoke to described a positive connection; and more importantly, the three priests who describe tension and even hostility all tell different, yet compatible and complementary, stories rather than repeating the same rumour.
One priest told The Pillar that Mattasoglio pretended to have supported Pope Leo’s election, but that he was actually xenophobic towards Prevost, because he was an American and had therefore opposed him being president of the Peruvian bishops’ conference. Another said that, while Prevost was not the type to hold grudges, disagreement on Church matters resulted in Prevost opposing Mattasoglio in turn, not wanting him to hold any important post within the episcopal conference. Finally, yet another priest suggested Mattasoglio even went to Rome to smear Prevost over highly dubious accusations of inaction regarding sexual abuse (more on this later).
If these reports from multiple priests, deemed credible by The Pillar, turn out to be correct then it seems that Prevost did not warm up to the radical left in Peru, that he leaned more orthodox when it came to Peruvian church politics and that some of his most consistent opponents at the conclave were radical progressives.
Zanchetta and Rupnik and the broader abuse problem
An important change under Pope Leo was that Rupnik quickly fled the Vatican and Zanchetta did not prolong his hospital stay further and returned to Argentina to serve the rest of his sentence. The speed with which the protective network that shielded Rupnik collapsed has many unfortunate implications regarding Francis, but at the same time many positive ones for Pope Leo. Support for Rupnik’s ‘art’ appears to have collapsed.
The recent appointment of a former abuser within the secretariat does show underlying problems remain in the Vatican which pose a challenge for Pope Leo. Thankfully, our new Pope has a track record that suggests he’ll be far more adapt at dealin with this problem consistently.
While the Argentinian bishops’ conference lagged behind the global Church in adopting measures to counter abuse, bishop Prevost in Peru fought long and hard to get the Peruvian bishops to adopt the Dallas Charter used in the USA to protect victims. He also took a pro-active stance early on regarding abuse in Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, meeting with victims and facilitating a meeting between investigative journalist Ugaz and Pope Francis.
In spite of this strong track record, Prevost eventually faced accusations that he did not properly deal with complaints regarding sexual abuse by a priest in his diocese. Late in his episcopacy, during the Covid pandemic, a few women accused a priest of having sexually assaulted them over a decade earlier, long before Prevost became bishop. Prevost is not accused of covering up the abuse, promoting the priest or being close to him.
“The Peruvian television program that initially published the allegations of coverup against Prevost in May 2024, Cuarto Poder, have since published another report apologizing for not having the full set of facts at the beginning, and saying the women and their suffering have been manipulated.”
The diocese has also confirmed (after Prevost was no longer bishop) that he did start an investigation and that he sent the results to the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith, which closed the matter, citing the lack of evidence, though it was reopened after the public controversy.
The accusations have not been given widespread credence in the secular press. Yet, ironically, both The Tablet and National Catholic Reporter are now giving renewed attention to these very dubious and seemingly political accusations. This is very different from how they were relatively silent on and even sometimes defended Francis’ handling of Zanchetta, Barros and McCarrick. When Archbishop Vigano first came forward in 2018 and accused Francis and several of his progressive allies of having covered up McCarrick’s abuse and promoting his allies, it was NCR who took the lead in attacking Vigano and protecting Francis.
Yet, now, the same outlets give credence and attention to accusations that Prevost failed in addressing historical abuse that had occurred long before he became bishop, promoted by an ex-priest guilty of sexual misconduct? Have they concluded that Pope Leo is not ‘their Pope’ and can sexual abuse therefore be selectively weaponized against the Pope again as it was under Pope Benedict?
Religion Digital claimed early in Pope Leo’s papacy that only they had defended Pope Leo against the accusations and that the accusations were pushed by what they called MAGA types. This selective and oversimplified narrative is now falling apart. While certain traditional outlets such as Infovaticana supported the accusations initially, others such as EWTN were fair and nuanced in their reporting. The organization SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), which attacked him over it, has been allied to radical progressive groups opposed to priestly celibacy for decades. They have worked with organizations such as radical modernist anti-celibacy group RentAPriest, with the anti-Catholic far left activist and former Catholic priest John Shuster holding prominent leading roles in both organizations. As previously mentioned the radical progressive Mattasoglio apparently tried to use it against then bishop Prevost, as well, just as NCR and The Tablet now did with Pope Leo.
Finally, the narrative falls apart on closer inspection, too, that Prevost fought abuse by the ‘authoritarian right’ and ‘fascist’ organization (and ‘evil ally of Opus Dei’) Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, as part of a leftist anti-abuse effort; and that it was then that he was unfairly accused by right-wingers in Peru of failing to act over the abuse accusations of a couple of women.
While SCV had some right-wing allies protecting it in Peru, the episcopacy in general, across the political spectrum, was ineffective in dealing with abuse in the organization for many years (though for complete fairness, the slightly more moderately progressive Jesuit Cardinal Pedro Barreto Jimeno opposed SCV over abuse rather than politics at least as early as 2020). The abuse in SCV was also disproportionately of a homosexual nature. While sometimes called the Opus Dei of Peru, Opus Dei itself has a huge presence in Peru, including Prevost’s diocese, and Prevost always worked well with them. The Sodalitium Christianae Vitae was a specific new group with its own secretive culture. Prevost never spoke of them critically over alleged political ideology. He focused on helping support victims early on.
It was Mattasoglio who spoke out against them rather belatedly in 2024 and made the issue political, repeating old accusations of the group being ‘fascist’ and liking it to a ‘failed Cold War experiment’ rather than focusing primarily on the plight of the victims. The fact that Mattasoglio mishandled abuse cases involving his own allies, while he is now also accused of having supported spurious accusations of mishandling abuse against Prevost, promoted by a disgraced former member of Sodalitium, unfortunately fits into a pattern of modernist partisan politics.
Apparently, Mattasoglio had no problem supporting attacks by what he deemed a fascist when it could be used to attack Prevost. Prevost’s own experiences in Peru have shown him that the Sodalitium was not representative of conservative Catholicism and that abuse is also a problem on the left. While some liberation theologians would politicize the issue, he did not.
Conclusion
While modernists have enjoyed inventing a deep friendship between the new Pope and figures like Tagle, on a curial level it is a fact that he helped Parolin with the Germans; and in Peru he did not ally himself with the left. He has not been linked to a network of radical liberal allies or friends, the way Francis did with Danneels, Kasper and other prelates linked to Sankt Gallen. Pope Leo also does not have a worrisome track record of friendships with either abusers or abuse enablers.
Bishop and then Cardinal Prevost did a good job opposing radical progressive elements, both as diocesan bishop and as curial prefect. We can hope and pray that he fully aligns with orthodox cardinals as a result and carries on this work as Pope.
