The year 2012 seems to be a century ago. It was not the year the world ended, instead it was the last year where Pope Benedict XVI led the Catholic Church. He was no Pope Pius XIII, no traditionalist. But he was clear on ethical matters, opposed the radical modernists, tried to respect traditionalists, was supportive of more pro-traditional cardinals, tried to makes the Novus Ordo more reverent.
Hence his resignation came as a great shock and soon came to be viewed as a huge mistake. Over the years it would lead to the despairing question if by some miracle we could have another Pope, at least as good as Benedict, who would pick up his reform efforts?
This is what both conservative and traditional Catholics needed from a new Pope and what we hoped for at the last conclave. While traditionalists would prefer Pope Pius XIII (or really Pope Pius XI the second, as Pope Pius XII started with the first liberal reforms) we’d happily embrace another Benedict, a return to 2012, but without Benedict’s age and exhaustion, less burdened by having partaken in Vatican II and perhaps less naïve regarding the swamp in the Vatican. For twelve years faithful Catholics had to endure the opposite. This period was hard not just for traditionalists, but for so called conservatives who had loyally followed and defended Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Suddenly, yesterday’s orthodoxy was deemed rigid and even Pharisaic, Pelagian, while dissident German prelates such as Walter Kasper who were reigned in under John Paul II and Benedict XVI were suddenly being promoted. It created (or perhaps brought to the surface) divisions and confusions. Scandals reigned rampant.
Yet, it may lead to good in the end. Or more accurately, God might have allowed these evils to work good out of it. If we wish to understand the point of the last twelve years, it is important to understand where we were at the start of 2013, both for better and for worse. It can even give us greater insights into current Church politics and the future that awaits us.
John Paul II and Vatican II conservatism
Till 2013, for decades, the mainstream of the Church was determined by the followers of the neo-orthodoxy of John Paul II and to a lesser extent Pope Paul VI. These self-defined moderates, centrists, simply Catholics, these John Paul II conservatives and conservative Vatican II adherents were not traditionalists, generally not traditionalist sympathizers and often even wary or suspicious of traditionalists whom they often criticized as Lefebvrists or as associated with Lefebrism.
There were a few traditionalist leaning prelates however with some influence in the late days of John Paul II: Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Ranjith. Benedict was elected and these prelates, traditionalism and the TLM started to receive support and integration in post-Vat II conservatism. Yet, it remained on the fringes, exceptional, something generally tolerated, extraordinary.
The mainstream was in many represented by Cardinal Müller, appointed prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith in 2012 by his fellow German Pope Benedict. Like Pope Benedict (and Swiss German Cardinal Koch) he had been more liberal leaning in his earlier years but moved towards the centre/centre-right. He remained sympathetic to (an orthodox interpretation of) moderate forms of liberation theology. He was in fact a pupil and friend of Gustavo Gutiérrez, the founder of Latin-American liberation theology (who rejected some of its more radical adherents). Regarding Gutierrez, Müller said: "The theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, independently of how you look at it, is orthodox because it is orthopractic and it teaches us the correct way of acting in a Christian fashion since it comes from true faith."
As such, Müller was seen by some as the perfect bridge between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. However, Francis insisted on challenging traditional Catholic doctrine on sexuality and the sacraments, which made a break between the two inevitable.
Müller spoke of the importance of Church unity early on and of his desire to halt the "growing polarization between traditionalists and progressives [which] is threatening the unity of the Church and generating strong tensions among its members".
"Traditionalists against progressives or whatever you would call them. This must be overcome, we need to find a new and fundamental unity in the Church and individual countries. Unity in Christ, not a unity produced according to a program and later invoked by a partisan speaker. We are not a community of people aligned to a party program, or a community of scientific research, our unity is gifted to us. We believe in the one Church united in Christ".
In November 2012 Müller claimed that both traditionalists and progressives who view the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth follow a "heretical interpretation" of the council and its aims. Pope Benedict XVI’s "hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity" is according to Müller the "only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology”.
This view of Cardinal Müller was shared by CDF consultor and Augustinian Cardinal Prosper Grech (not to be confused with Mario Grech, the secretary of the Synod for Bishops, also a Maltese cardinal).
Prosper Grech warned that the Church was always threatened by disunity: "Between ultra-traditionalist extremists and ultra-progressive extremists, between priests rebelling against obedience and those who do not recognize the signs of the times, there always will be the risk of small schisms that not only damage the church, but go against the will of God."
Prosper Grech at the time was close to another Augustinian, to the prior general Father Robert Francis Prevost.
 |
| Prevost and George |
Father Prevost’s second term as prior general came to an end in early 2013, after which he went back to his hometown of Chicago to serve the Augustinians there and got closer to conservative icon Cardinal Francis George, a close friend of Cardinal Pell. In 2014 Cardinal George, while already ailing and at the end of his ecclesial career, specifically showed up in a wheelchair just to make a surprise visit at the reception for Prevost.
George was an opponent of the death penalty and even worked with Nancy Pelosi on migration reform. Yet, he was a fierce opponent of modernism in matters of sexual ethics and faith. He similarly viewed himself as neither left nor right, but as simply Catholic. He summed up his view when he said:
“In the Church today, there are voices on the left that resent the Church’s teaching about many issues, particularly sexual morality, and therefore resent the bishops who uphold it. There are voices on the right that say that they embrace the teaching but resent bishops who do not govern the Church exactly as they say bishops should. But the nature of episcopacy is to be free to act in Christ’s name as pastors of the Church. Bishops cannot be co-opted by state authority or political power, nor by pressure groups within the Church, lest the bishops fail in their office.”
Prevost retweeted this message.
Then Archbishop George (the day before it was announced he’d be made a cardinal) said in a homily that liberal Catholicism was exhausted, conservative Catholicism was sectarian, and that, in any case, there was only one Catholicism. “Liberal Catholicism is an exhausted project parasitical on a substance that no longer exists. It shows itself unable to pass on the faith in its integrity and is inadequate for fostering the self-surrender called for in Christian marriage, consecrated life and the priesthood.” According to him, however, the answer was not a conservative Catholicism “so sectarian that it cannot serve as a sign of the unity of all people in Christ… Simply Catholicism in all its fullness and depth, a faith able to distinguish itself from any culture and yet able to transform them all.”
 |
| Fr. Prevost OSA (superior of the Augustinians),Card. Prosper Grech, OSA, and Cardinal Karlic (Karlic, in 2007, and Grech, in 2012, were created cardinals by Benedict XVI) |
Likewise, when Cardinal Müller communicated with Czechian anti-Communist Cardinal Duka in 2023, and criticized the Responsum of the new prefect for the Doctrine of Faith Fernandez, (which suggested the divorced remarried could sometimes receive the Eucharist), Duka responded to Müller and said he was mislabeled by certain people as a traditionalist when he was just a normal conservative. Duka has been very critical of Communist China, Islamic migration, LGBT groups and communion for the divorced remarried. The Czechian cardinal, much like Müller, Prosper Grech and Francis George viewed himself as simply Catholic. Yet, it seems as though these mainstream cardinals come to see that (radical) traditionalists are not as much a threat to unity as liberals, or even a threat at all.
While Burke was an early critic, it were in fact mostly these moderates who ended up forming the bulk of the vocal and consistent opposition against Francis for most of his pontificate, primarily after Amoris Laetitia, including George Weigel, Cardinal Pell, the old guard of the Pontifical Academy of Life, EWTN, Cardinal Eijk and eventually even Müller. Francis' harshest critics became conservative Novus Ordites, not the TLM communities who certain far left commentators believe represent some Trumpist populist right political movement (when in France and other countries traditionalists are not linked to Francis critics at all).
Francis created unity among orthodox Catholics?
This is perhaps the great irony of the pontificate of Francis. It had the effect of bringing conservatives and traditionalists much closer together. Prelates like Müller, Dolan and Chomali got closer to the likes of Burke and Sarah. Traditionalist sympathizers also moved further to the right (with Burke and Schneider releasing a faith declaration that rejected intercommunion with the Eastern orthodox, and religious freedom as a right for idolaters), while at the same time increasing respect and recognition for them amongst regular conservative bishops and even some moderates disillusioned with Francis. Most importantly, it made the Tridentine mass both a symbol of persecution and arbitrary and lawless policy under the Francis pontificate and of resistance against this highly unpopular pontificate.
Cardinal Zen openly celebrating the Tridentine mass in his old age and drawing attention to it, might perfectly sum up this development. The fact that Cardinal Müller embraced the traditional rite, as well, shows it is a broader trend. That Zen was persecuted by the Communists who took over Hong Kong (even receiving recognition from secular and leftist politicians), while Pell was vindicated by a 7-0 acquittal by the High Court (after more than a year in prison following a show-trial) earned both these conservative prelates widespread recognition and respect. That both became friendlier towards traditionalism and showed trust in Burke only strengthened the relevance and authority of the traditionalist-conservative synthesis.
Four years after Traditionis Custodes, traditionalism and the TLM are more mainstream and more influential than they were in 2005. The TLM is popular amongst (young) priests, converts and growing families, and protected and even celebrated by an increasing number of bishops who have resisted Traditionis Custodes throughout years of pressure. The TLM no longer lives by the grace of Summorum Pontificum. Even if SP is not restored and Pope Leo merely allows bishops to decide whether to allow the TLM in their diocese, a supermajority is at this point likely to do so. The Tridentine mass creates thriving parishes, donations and vocations.
Many bishops experience it as a source of unity that reignites the faith. Meanwhile, younger priests and seminarians, most clergy ordained since 2005, and even more those under the age of 40, treat Vatican II increasingly as just a minor chapter in Church history, look back to the pre-Vat II faith, and take inspiration from the most orthodox elements of Benedict’s pontificate. Bishop Erik Varden from Norway is a slightly older example of this recent trend. Many of the traditionalists and traditionalist sympathetic priests (enabled by John Paul II bishops) will become bishops in the next ten to fifteen years. In roughly twenty years several of them will be cardinal and eligible to be elected Pope.
For now, however, a regular conservative who is a self-defined centrists but sees that traditionalists are not a threat to unity, but courageous fighters for it who deserve respect, would suffice. Such a Pope can restore unity and work the chaos of the last pontificate unto good. Which brings us back to Prosper Grech’s and George’s friend father Prevost, who was appointed bishop of Chiclayo in Peru in late 2014, made prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops in 2023 and as a result cardinal, and who was elected Pope Leo XIV in this year 2025.
Pope Paul VII?
Francis had joked multiple times that the Pope after him would be John XXIV, he never mentioned any other name. Yet, Prevost when elected chose to be Pope Leo XIV. It does not seem he was the planned successor, as some liberals now seem to imply.
Progressives seem to have realized that Pope Leo is not John XXIV, so they’re now trying to turn Francis into John XXIV and Pope Leo into Paul VII. As Paul VI consolidated the revolution/reform of John XXIII, so now Leo XIV will for Francis, together they would form another springtime, in contrast to the winter pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. This appears to be the new narrative if ReligionDigital is representative of the progressive spin.
The desperate narrative of Pope Leo XIV as the new Paul VI is mainly odd because the left has never forgiven Paul VI for Humanae Vitae. Nor did Humanae Vitae stand on its own, it was part of a more conservative, pro-curial turn where Pope Paul VI broke with the radicals who had highjacked the Second Vatican Council. John Paul II merely doubled down on this post-1968 conservatism and enforced it far more decisively, authoritatively and consistently. Slightly earlier, in 1967, Pope Paul VI had already reaffirmed priestly celibacy in Sacerdotalis Caelibatus.
In 1975 he approved the CDF declaration Persona Humana which countered libertine notions based on alleged findings of modern psychology and reasserted the sinfulness of masturbation, extramarital sex and homosexuality. The notion that innate homosexuality would justify ‘committed’ homosexual relationships and pastoral care based on this notion were specifically rejected.
Finally, it was Pope Paul VI who supported the CDF declaration, Inter Insigniores, in 1976 which was the first papal document in modern times to reject female ordination and explain why it is impossible.
It was even Pope Paul VI who started the cleansing of the Catholic Church in The Netherlands, where all seven diocesan bishops pushed ultra-modernism and rejected Humanae Vitae, by appointing two conservative dissident voices (Ad Simonis and Johannes Gijsen) to replace two of the modernist bishops soon after they reached retirement age.
Yet, now, in order to present Pope Leo XIV as some progressive who will continue the line of Francis, the left is embracing Paul VI and pretending it was only with the election of John Paul II in 1978 that ‘the spirit of Vatican II was stifled and suppressed’?
John Paul II was more conservative than Paul VI, but not to a radical degree. His pontificate was not a counterrevolutionary repudiation of Paul VI’s. He kept the new mass, was not very permissive towards the traditional mass and he was the one who excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained. He was a firm adherent of Vatican II who continued ecumenical dialogue and even intercommunion with the Eastern orthodox. It was also John Paul II who attempted to significantly shift Church doctrine on the death penalty. Pope John Paul II was mainly more effective (though not fully effective) in reigning in radical liberals.
The biggest positive change by Pope John Paul II, however, was his rejection of the appeasement policy which John XXIII and Paul VI pursued towards the Soviet Union. He helped Reagan and Thatcher bring down Communism in Eastern Europe. Though, on foreign policy he also pursued some more left-leaning and questionable policies, breaking with Thatcher and Reagan in pressuring Pinochet to resign in Chile and supporting sanctions against South Africa, while failing to equally condemn far worse racism and oppression of black Africans by Berber Muslims in countries like Mauritania.
If any Pope has been like Paul VI, however, it was ironically Francis (though with many of the faults accentuated). He allied with radicals in his early years, soured on them and they on him in his later years, turned against proposals to overturn Humanae Vitae or priestly celibacy and, like Paul VI, there was no one like him to succeed him; his successor was either going to be more progressive or orthodox. John Paul II was a more conservative version of Paul VI, but that was in part because his often weak and inactive belated conservatism was rather unique and able to satisfy few and unify no one.
With Francis, his successor was always going to be either more radical, with the anti-celibacy Tagle or significantly more pro-gay Zuppi, or to his right such as Erdö, You Heung-sik and even Parolin.
Prevost was, and as Pope Leo is, however significantly to the right of Parolin and You Heung-sik (just how much still remains to be seen). He may or may not be more liberal on having a few lay prefects in the Curia, that also remains unclear, but Parolin worked with the radical progressives less than ten years ago and his being exceptionally friendly towards Communist China, while Pope Leo is far more aware of the dangers of Communism (if Cardinal Duka is to be believed) and additionally appears far less hostile towards the TLM and traditionalism. Pope Leo XIV seems to be revealing himself to be the improved return to 2012 we need.
Conclusion
Pope Leo XIV is unique but inasmuch as he can be compared to previous Popes, he is neither Francis II nor John XXIV and inasmuch as he is like Paul VI, he is like post-1968 Paul VI. Thankfully, so far signs point to him generally being a combination of the good elements of John Paul II and Benedict (with his own unique qualities added) and less of the drawbacks.
Pope Leo XIV is not Pope Pius XIII. Nor would Müller or even Erdö have been Pope Pius XIII. But if he is a young and sharp Pope Benedict XVII or a John Paul III with the benefit of hindsight, he can serve as the perfect transition pope to a future Pope Pius XIII. He can be the voice of peace and unity the Church and the world currently needs.
