Cardinal Robert Prevost had a chance to truly make history. As the first American ever elected to the papacy, he could have named himself Pope McDonald I. What a lost opportunity. Oh, well.
Onto other matters:
As a lifelong Catholic who hasn't stepped foot into a Catholic church since Pope Francis I (who famously quipped, "Who am I to judge?" and then repeatedly judged millions of Americans to be hateful bigots) went off the rails, I was extremely anxious during the papal election this week. I'm still extremely anxious. For years now, I've been going to a nondenominational church. And it's great, I can't complain. But my home is the Catholic church. I was born a Catholic, I was raised a Catholic, and I'll die a Catholic. Pope Francis couldn't change that.
Much of my Catholic identity is due to theological and philosophical reasons, but I'll confess there is also a certain tribalist belonging. It's like being an American. I might move somewhere abroad, somewhere wonderful and exciting and welcoming, with great food and great weather and great music and great people. But I'll always be an American. That's where my heart and soul are.
And no matter how long I had been away, it would always pain me to see, even from abroad, Americans choose a terrible president for themselves, election after election after election.
Hence, my current anxiety with the Catholic church.
The rags of the Pravda media have been falling all over themselves with glee at the prospect that Leo XIV "represents continuity with the papacy of the late Pope Francis" (CNN), as someone who was "very resonant of Francis" (MSNBC), and that he could be an ideological counterweight "against America's newly powerful strain of right-leaning Catholics" (NYT).
In typical elitist fashion, the BBC faulted Francis I for "lacking an ability to win more allies in the US on the big issues of migration, climate change and inequality, because of a disconnect in understanding the most effective ways of communicating his arguments to them." Translation: Francis's policies were spot on, but he was unable to dumb it down enough for the toothless inbreds in flyover country to comprehend. We've seen this approach from the Democrats since the early days of Obama.
It always amuses me how the same leftists who mock the faithful and sneer at their antiquated beliefs suddenly jump into the fray whenever there's an internal religious matter to be settled, as if their militantly atheistic opinions should have any bearing whatsoever. It's no secret that whatever they advise will be with the intention not of strengthening Christendom, but of neutering it. It's a good rule of thumb that, whatever you value, handle in a manner precisely the opposite of what the leftists suggest.
Much has been made about the name Leo, and how Prevost may have chosen the name out of a desire to follow in the footsteps of Leo XIII, a strong advocate for workers' rights and "social justice." But Leo XIII himself chose the name out of admiration for Leo XII, who was an extreme conservative.
For all our reasonable suspicion that Prevost might follow the preceding Leo down a path of "social justice," keep in mind that Leo XIII took the stances he did at the end of the 19th century, when working conditions truly were abysmal, even in the West. Things have since improved, and surely the new pope understands that the working conditions witnessed by Upton Sinclair over a century ago have since been remedied.
And in areas in the world where they haven't, those wretched conditions exist not because of the West but in spite of it. Wagging a papal finger at Donald Trump will not improve the plight of Uyghur slaves in Chinese factories or of religious minorities and women in the Muslim world.
But let's be honest. At this point, we simply don't have enough information to do anything but engage in conjecture.
Prevost chose the name Leo XIV to continue down the social justice path of Leo XIII? Uh oh, we're screwed!
But Leo XIII himself chose his name because of his admiration and respect for Leo XII, an extreme conservative? Whew, maybe we're safe!
But Prevost's own older brother said he'll probably be "a second Pope Francis"? Uh oh, we're screwed!
But Prevost's colleagues and fellow cardinals explain that he's far more conciliatory and humble than was Francis and will try to mend bridges with conservative American Catholics rather than further antagonize them? Whew, maybe we're safe!
But his previous social media posts (assuming they were posted by him and not some overzealous intern) criticized Trump's immigration policy? Uh oh, we're screwed!
I would urge both the elated Marxists and the despondent conservatives to give this papacy some time to play out. It's only Day Three. The fact that the cardinals chose someone who is both American and who has spent a significant amount of time living and working in the third world suggests that they do indeed understand the need to rebuild the bridges that Francis recklessly and needlessly destroyed.
To my fellow conservatives, I would simply caution that Leo XIV's lifelong focus on helping the poor (aside from being something Jesus Himself taught us to do) doesn't automatically guarantee that he holds the vicious anti-capitalist attitudes as did his predecessor. Even the social justice-oriented Leo XIII opposed socialism and supported private property rights. Mother Teresa spent her life serving the poorest of the poor in Calcutta, and this in no way translated into the anti-Western liberation theology of Francis.
You can help the poor and also realize that free-market capitalism is the best way to do so.
To the Marxist parasites who want to subvert the papacy into a tool you use to further destroy the West from the inside out (as you did with the media, with education, with the judiciary, with the bureaucracy, etc.), don't count your appropriated chickens before they hatch. Religious figures, like politicians running for office, may say a lot of things "on the trail," so to speak. It doesn't matter whether they sincerely mean what they say or are just currying favor. Once they've attained their desired office, they often find that governance is far more complicated than getting approval on social media.
Francis did significant damage to the papacy's relations with American Catholics. If Leo XIV honestly wishes to mend those fences, he'll have to take a different approach. His temporal authority exists solely to the degree that Catholics, including Americans, determine it credible.
On a closing note, there is another Pope Leo whom Robert Prevost may have had in mind when choosing his name. I'm thinking of Pope Leo I, otherwise known as Leo the Great. He is one of only three popes to be officially recognized with the title "the Great." In 452 AD, an unarmed Pope Leo I met the approaching army of Attila the Hun and persuaded Attila himself to spare the city of Rome from destruction and plunder. Attila turned his army back, and Rome was spared.
Today, the barbarians are again at the gates of Rome. And Paris. And London. And Brussels. And Vienna. And Manchester. And Cologne. And Madrid. And Amsterdam. And Toulouse. And Malmö. And Barcelona. And Hamburg. And New York City. And New Orleans. And Fort Hood. But this time around, no amount of gentle persuasion will produce a voluntary retreat.
Was Prevost thinking of this when he chose his name? Does he understand that the biggest threat to Christendom is not climate change or Tom Homan or denying that there are fifty-seven genders? Does he grasp that we Christians won't be able to help the poor if we're all dead or enslaved?
This late in the game, it's a Hail Mary.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member