This is the fourth of several analyses written for Rorate by our contributor Serre Verweij on Leo XIV's first year.
Series: The First Year of Leo XIV
IV - LEO AND THE LATIN AMERICANS
[Part I - Leo and the Germans.]
I warmly greet all the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, joined in a collegial spirit to discern together the current challenges to the church in Latin America and to seek, in affective and effective communion, pastoral initiatives that lead to solutions in accordance with the criteria of the Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
With these words, Pope Leo XIV began his message to the bishops of the Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (CELAM), on the 70th anniversary of their foundation, at the Rio de Janeiro Conference of 1955.
It might sound very basic and stale, yet it is also, perhaps, extremely revealing. Tradition and the magisterium as guidelines, no ‘making a mess’, no revolutionary endeavours. This anti-radical approach to Latin America can serve as key to understanding the change from Pope Francis to Pope Leo and how Pope Leo will shape the Church in Latin America, but also how it shaped him.
Latin America was the most uniformly Catholic continent for centuries and in recent decades became the founding place of the various forms of Liberation Theology. The continent became deeply divided, ideologically, and its progressive wing probably the most important ally of the modernist Germans outside of Europe. Yet, it also had strong conservative, reactionary, traditionalist, and even integrist currents. Francis was on the side of the moderate progressives, and his ‘make a mess’ (hagan lío) populism and personalist rule, styled after Latin American strongmen, caused great upheaval and left Rome in a far worse state in 2025 than it had been in 2013.
This is why few expected another Latin American to be elected Pope. Prevost somewhat sidestepped this handicap by not being Latin American by birth -- but being from the United States was considered an issue in its own right, especially with polarized sentiments regarding president Trump.
Prevost somehow managed to unite most of the very disunited Latin American cardinals behind him, to be viewed as the best of two very controversial worlds rather than the worst, and became Pope. This only makes the question -- "Which side of Latin American politics was Prevost on?" -- all the more important.
Prevost’s ecclesial career before he became prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops can be roughly divided into three large phases and several shorter periods. His first phase was serving as a missionary in Peru for most of the 1980s and 1990s, interrupted by a few stints of study and one year of mission direction work back in Illinois. This was followed by a second, more extended, stay in Illinois after he ended his missionary work in 1998. The next extensive phase was that of his twelve years serving as prior general of the Augustinians in Rome. Then, after another stay (of a little over a year) in Illinois, he returned to Peru to serve as bishop of Chiclayo for eight years, till he became prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops in 2023.
As such, two of Prevost’s long ecclesial phases were in Peru. In total, he spent nearly 25 years in Latin America. Prevost was truly of two countries, or perhaps three; the United States and Peru -- and arguably Italy, not only studying in Rome, but serving as prior general of the Augustinians there for twelve years.
His formation and preparation to become a priest (his entire seminary period) was American and his ordinations, both as a deacon and as a priest, were all in the United States. His high-school education was American, too, as was the faith of his parents. He understands the region in a non-superficial way without being entirely determined by it.
His tweets were largely limited to Peru, the United States, and the Vatican. Therefore he does not appear to have had a real Pan-Latin American identity, but more a Peruvian-American identity. Yet, his knowledge of Peru is not that of a superficial missionary who spent just a few years in the area. Additionally, he has interacted at least semi-regularly with other Augustinians, Jesuits, Opus Dei clergymen, and even bishops from other parts of Latin America. As such, he cannot be someone without an opinion on the conflicts and heresies which have plagued the region.
In excerpts of his first real papal interview published by Crux, Pope Leo briefly spoke of his connection to Latin America. He said:
I’m obviously an American and I very much feel that I’m an American, but I also love Peru very much, the Peruvian people, that is a part of who I am. Half of my ministerial life was spent in Peru, so the Latin American perspective is very valuable to me. I think that comes out also in an appreciation that I have for the life of the Church from Latin America, which I believe was significant in both my connection with Pope Francis, my understanding of some of the vision that Pope Francis had for the Church, and how we can continue to carry that on in terms of a true prophetic vision for the church today and tomorrow.
This still does not really tell us where he is positioned within the Latin American Church. This requires a deeper look, both into the continent itself and into the priestly and episcopal life of Robert Francis Prevost.
Always important to remember is that Latin America is not uniform. It definitely has a common history involving conversion under the Spanish and Portuguese empires and as a result that nearly all countries in the Americas have either Spanish or Portuguese as a primary language. They also have had to deal with the problems of suppressing local pre-conversion superstitions, the promotion of Pentecostalism by anti-Catholic Americans, and the dual issue of the Cold War and Liberation Theology.
Argentina at this point is the country of Fernandez and Francis, while Brazil has been a hotbed of the worst forms of Liberation Theology and, oddly enough, German-Brazilians pushing progressive experiments. Peru, however, is the land of Augustinian missionaries and Opus Dei.
Similarly, while Prevost condemned violence by radical militias under authoritarian right-wing Peruvian president Fujimoro, he did not ally himself with the left over it. Instead, he personally got to witness the worse atrocities by the far left Maoist Shining Path, and actively spoke out against this just as fiercely. He saw Communism without the mask. This could help explain why he would have a pectoral cross with the relics of an Augustinian bishop martyred by the leftist Republicans during the Spanish Civil War and why he visited the Valley of the Fallen in Spain during the early 2000s (a monument of reconciliation constructed by Francisco Franco that is very much hated by the left).
_Espa%C3%B1a_(3194706145).jpg/1600px-Abad%C3%ADa_de_la_Santa_Cruz_del_Valle_de_los_Ca%C3%ADdos_(Comunidad_de_Madrid)_Espa%C3%B1a_(3194706145).jpg?20210930114741) |
| Valle de los Caídos, Spain |
Augustinians were used by the Church to counter the appeal of Liberation Theology among the poor in Peru. Something at which they were sometimes more effective than the Opus Dei. Prevost himself is said to have had respectful dialogue with both hardline Opus Dei supporters and (some) supporters of Liberation Theology. He met the (more moderate) founder of Liberation Theology, Gustavo Gutiérrez, in Peru in the 1980s and reportedly respected him, though he ironically was never as close to him or as supportive of him as Cardinal Müller (though he did retweet a post regarding his full rehabilitation early under Francis).
His period as bishop of Chiclayo might be most informative. It is a diocese with more middle class Catholics and relatively less poverty than in other parts of the Peruvian church; less affected by social upheaval and the lure of Liberation Theology, its Opus Dei presence is less radically hardline, though still very much "conservative." While conservative clergy feared that Prevost, having been installed by Francis, would engage in a purge, this did not happen. He put his trust in the local conservative clergy, was supportive of Opus Dei and its university, and did not bring in his own Augustinians.
He did not implement Amoris Laetitia to allow communion for the divorced remarried, made zero controversial personnel or seminary decisions, spoke out against gender ideology, tweeted against abortion and gay families, all while refraining from supporting partisan social justice causes. In liturgy he was described as strict, ‘say the black do the red’ being his approach. Fr. Bernardino Gil, former vicar general of Chiclayo told The Pillar: “He is a very smart, well-rounded man, and he always gave care to all aspects of the liturgy.”
The Pillar received similar reports regarding doctrinal orthodoxy. Fr. José Luis Zamora, former rector of the Chiclayo seminary, said about Prevost:
“He always showed great respect for doctrine, for Catholic moral teachings, and for the social doctrine of the Church. I never saw anything that stood out negatively, he was never ambiguous at all… In doctrinal matters he was always characterized by a great charity and a great clarity.”
The rector of the Chiclayo Cathedral, Fr. Jorge Millan Cotrina, who lived in the residence of the bishop together with other priests, also spoke to The Pillar regarding bishop Prevost: “He was very open, talked with everyone, received everyone, but was very clear on doctrinal matters. I spoke often with him about these issues and he was very clear.”
“He arrived in the diocese to build upon what had been done before, he did not make any radical changes. He came and wanted to know the work we had been doing, and little-by-little gave everything his own touch, but he never came with prejudices because we’re ‘conservatives,’ on the contrary, he always trusted us.”
He also told Argentinian news outlet Radio Con Vos about how Prevost dealt with homosexuality:
He knows very well what is the teaching of Christ," [on such matters]; "he showed it to us in his homilies; I never heard from him one sentence in favor of all these novelties. Rather, he was always a man who tried to put realities in the proper place."
Érika Valdivieso, who led the Institute of the Family in the Catholic University Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo in Chiclayo likewise told The Pillar:
“He was always very interested in the work we did, he always encouraged us to work in public policies in favor of the family and to promote a pastoral and academic message defending the family… As a bishop he was always very faithful to the Church’s social doctrine, he called us to protect and care for the family, but always with charity. I never heard him use hurtful words, even if he was very clear with the doctrine of the Church. He saw everyone as a child of God but always spoke very clearly in doctrinal matters.”
While a lot of the conclave is still shrouded in mystery, it became clear that there was a broad block of Latin American cardinals, both Conservative and Progressive, who supported Prevost on the first ballot. But ultra-progressive Peruvian cardinal Castillo appears to have been the odd man out there and, according to at least one source, Fernandez was, too. Castillo was at least in part motived by left-wing xenophobia, if his own priests are to be believed. While Prevost had become very popular and respected in Peru, both with his local faithful and priests and most of his bishop colleagues -- for Castillo, Prevost was still just an American and someone to be opposed. Castillo has come under increasing scrutiny for financial scandals and mismanaging abuse, other than for his heterodox views, since the death of Francis.
Rather than simply accepting Castillo’s retirement at 75, Pope Leo has apparently ordered a de facto apostolic visitation into the archdiocese by fellow Augustinians. This raises not a few interesting questions: Why make it unofficial and not rely on the regular Curia? Does Pope Leo not trust the career curialists with this? Why not accept the retirement? Does he wish to further discredit or expose the radical modernist and scandal ridden cardinal for the good of the Church?
How this investigation will develop exactly remains to be seen. It strongly suggests however the new pontificate is far less friendly towards (the scandals of) the radical Latin American left.
Overall, Pope Leo’s experiences and knowledge appear to have made him align with the Peruvian Catholic right in matters of doctrinal orthodoxy, without the sometimes somewhat weak stance on new right cultist groups or excessive sympathy for the rich or the middle classes.
The Pope’s ability to speak not just fluent Spanish, but also Portuguese, ensures he can understand the subtleties of ecclesial politics in Brazil with its more than 100 million Catholics and seven cardinal electors. The fact that he has English as his first language unites him with all of the Americans and the entire Anglophone world.
Pope Leo seems like a citizen of the world in the best sense. Broadminded, yet not relativistic. Inspired by Latin American piety and love for the poor, but not populist Socialism. Understanding of the difference between native culture and Pagan remnants.
In some ways, the American from Chicago might be what some people hoped for from a reasonable Latin American pope.
