Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well there was this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/28/maga-catholics-vatican-pope-conclave

I don’t know about anyone else but MAGA is melting down over this and thinks it’s political. We have Laura Loomer, Trump’s close advisor, calling him: “anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis.”

Great to be an American.

MAGA melting down over him makes me think he might be a decent pope. They hated Francis, after all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

Pope Leo IV has been in active ministry for about 40+ years. 25 of those years have been spent outside of the USA. His most impactful ministry has been in Peru where he would have his deepest connections to the state. His roles in the USA were relatively low profile where he wasn’t deeply interacting with secular leaders (in the way, say, a Bishop would). In other words, he is not well-connected in the USA. He chose to become a Peruvian citizen.

He comes from the Augustinians. An order that was originally a mashup of a bunch of hermits in Italy (not actually founded by St. Augustine). Augustinians are respected academically but they keep a relatively low profile focusing instead on community service. There charism (crucial to understanding PLIV’s formation) is one of seeking truth and service.

He chose to speak three different languages at his first address: the traditional Latin, a shout out in Spanish to his diocese he served in Peru, and Italian. With those choices, he went out of his way to signal that this is not about America.

He is a canon lawyer by education. A curious educational choice for a young novice/deacon, but canon lawyers are rarely firebrands in the Catholic Church. Typically canon lawyers are people who are awesome no. 2 guys and gals serving behind the scenes. The cardinals know this.

He wore the traditional, ornate vestments for his presentation from the Basilica balcony. Pope Francis famously eschewed those vestments. Read into that what you will.

The Church is in greater crisis in Europe, right now. Particularly in Germany. If the Cardinal electors were looking for a political appointment to connect with the broader society, Europe is more important right now. Growth is in Asia and Africa, right now. That is more important. The Cardinals and Church do not see the world in polarities and the Church probably doesn’t view the USA as any particular special status or threat right now worthy of a response like the USSR in 1978. If the Church is going to wade into politics so blatantly like with the election of JPII, it will be over more than just the movement of migrants. Yes, the Church will advocate for migrants, but the threat needs to be more existential.

If they really wanted someone to send a message to Trump and conservative American Catholics there were better American candidates available for that. Make no mistake, Cardinal McElroy being moved from San Diego to DC earlier this year was a clear message from the Church to Trump.

To me, I just don’t see it. This screams to me that the Cardinals were looking for a unity Candidate who would also slow down change as a slight course correction to Pope Francis. I don’t think his status as an American citizen had anything to do with it. But time will tell.

The first big signal to watch for is if he does anything with the TLM. The TLM is a hotbed of conservative Catholicism in the USA. If he further cracks down on it, then you may be right. If he relaxes the restrictions put on the TLM, then you’ll know this had nothing to do with MAGA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why anyone would be happy given this: "In picking the 69-year-old Prevost, the papal conclave looked past allegations that he had mishandled or failed to act on sexual abuse cases involving priests in both Peru and the United States."

Do any cardinals care about sexual abuse.

Do any religious men with power anywhere care about sexual abuse? I have yet to see evidence of that, anywhere in the world.

That's not true and shows you haven't done research into the massive reforms that started decades ago.

Anonymous wrote:Well there was this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/28/maga-catholics-vatican-pope-conclave

I don’t know about anyone else but MAGA is melting down over this and thinks it’s political. We have Laura Loomer, Trump’s close advisor, calling him: “anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis.”

Great to be an American.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like Peru also gets as much, if not more, of a claim on him given he lived most of his adult life there and chose to be a citizen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

I largely agree with you. When I was first googling yesterday, before news stories were overtaken by the selection (so looking back at prediction news stories) he was considered a dark horse candidate on just a few lists. He was also described as "the least American of the Americans." He was definitely not chosen to go toe to toe. But I also believe that his election is a strong rebuke to Trumpism. Or at least as strong a politcal statement could be made in a non political framework. And frankly a rebuke to Vance's absolutely terrible interpretation of Catholicism, too.

(side note but I believe Vance acted horribly toward Pope Francis / the Vatican on what was the Pope's last day on earth. I doubt the Vatican will forget that; I certainly never will.).

Trump and Vance have broken your brains and you can only see the world through that paradigm. The church isn’t choosing a leader for 20+ years to rebuke a POTUS or VP who have less than four years left in power. There are far more important issues to deal with (Eastern Europe and Gaza, to name two).

I think you're not getting what many posters are writing: that of course Cardinals considered the wider issues of the Church, in terms of missionary work, that Pope Leo cited today in his Mass, helping the poor and vulnerable everywhere and particularly in conflict zones. But they can walk and chew gum at the same time, these men - they're the most intelligent and functional people in the Catholic Church, those who have risen through the ranks thanks to their capabilities. It will not have escaped them that Pope Leo is a rebuke to the distorted value systems of neo-fascist governments, particularly those who seek the legitimacy of Catholicism, or Christianity writ large. Italy, Hungary, the US, and other governments come to mind. Pope Leo is not what Giorgia Meloni's or Victor Orban's governments had in mind either, or any of the very Catholic far right Le Pen groups or others.

In terms of oppression of women, however, they're all in agreement. So it's not all cut and dried.

OMG.

Any Catholic Pope will be a rebuke of every government on the planet in some form or another. Do you really not understand that?

Let me ask you, was the election of Pope Francis with his strong pro-life convictions a rebuke of Barack Obama?

Was Pope Leo XIV a rebuke of Mark Carney and Canada’s abortion laws?

Any Pope expressing down the middle of the fairway Catholic views is a rebuke of every government. There are no Catholic-aligned governments in existence on the planet. The Cardinals know this.

The narcissism of Americans having to make everything about themselves is just wild.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

I largely agree with you. When I was first googling yesterday, before news stories were overtaken by the selection (so looking back at prediction news stories) he was considered a dark horse candidate on just a few lists. He was also described as "the least American of the Americans." He was definitely not chosen to go toe to toe. But I also believe that his election is a strong rebuke to Trumpism. Or at least as strong a politcal statement could be made in a non political framework. And frankly a rebuke to Vance's absolutely terrible interpretation of Catholicism, too.

(side note but I believe Vance acted horribly toward Pope Francis / the Vatican on what was the Pope's last day on earth. I doubt the Vatican will forget that; I certainly never will.).

Trump and Vance have broken your brains and you can only see the world through that paradigm. The church isn’t choosing a leader for 20+ years to rebuke a POTUS or VP who have less than four years left in power. There are far more important issues to deal with (Eastern Europe and Gaza, to name two).

I think you're not getting what many posters are writing: that of course Cardinals considered the wider issues of the Church, in terms of missionary work, that Pope Leo cited today in his Mass, helping the poor and vulnerable everywhere and particularly in conflict zones. But they can walk and chew gum at the same time, these men - they're the most intelligent and functional people in the Catholic Church, those who have risen through the ranks thanks to their capabilities. It will not have escaped them that Pope Leo is a rebuke to the distorted value systems of neo-fascist governments, particularly those who seek the legitimacy of Catholicism, or Christianity writ large. Italy, Hungary, the US, and other governments come to mind. Pope Leo is not what Giorgia Meloni's or Victor Orban's governments had in mind either, or any of the very Catholic far right Le Pen groups or others.

In terms of oppression of women, however, they're all in agreement. So it's not all cut and dried.

OMG.

Any Catholic Pope will be a rebuke of every government on the planet in some form or another. Do you really not understand that?

Let me ask you, was the election of Pope Francis with his strong pro-life convictions a rebuke of Barack Obama?

Was Pope Leo XIV a rebuke of Mark Carney and Canada’s abortion laws?

Any Pope expressing down the middle of the fairway Catholic views is a rebuke of every government. There are no Catholic-aligned governments in existence on the planet. The Cardinals know this.

The narcissism of Americans having to make everything about themselves is just wild.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

I largely agree with you. When I was first googling yesterday, before news stories were overtaken by the selection (so looking back at prediction news stories) he was considered a dark horse candidate on just a few lists. He was also described as "the least American of the Americans." He was definitely not chosen to go toe to toe. But I also believe that his election is a strong rebuke to Trumpism. Or at least as strong a politcal statement could be made in a non political framework. And frankly a rebuke to Vance's absolutely terrible interpretation of Catholicism, too.

(side note but I believe Vance acted horribly toward Pope Francis / the Vatican on what was the Pope's last day on earth. I doubt the Vatican will forget that; I certainly never will.).

Trump and Vance have broken your brains and you can only see the world through that paradigm. The church isn’t choosing a leader for 20+ years to rebuke a POTUS or VP who have less than four years left in power. There are far more important issues to deal with (Eastern Europe and Gaza, to name two).

I think you're not getting what many posters are writing: that of course Cardinals considered the wider issues of the Church, in terms of missionary work, that Pope Leo cited today in his Mass, helping the poor and vulnerable everywhere and particularly in conflict zones. But they can walk and chew gum at the same time, these men - they're the most intelligent and functional people in the Catholic Church, those who have risen through the ranks thanks to their capabilities. It will not have escaped them that Pope Leo is a rebuke to the distorted value systems of neo-fascist governments, particularly those who seek the legitimacy of Catholicism, or Christianity writ large. Italy, Hungary, the US, and other governments come to mind. Pope Leo is not what Giorgia Meloni's or Victor Orban's governments had in mind either, or any of the very Catholic far right Le Pen groups or others.

In terms of oppression of women, however, they're all in agreement. So it's not all cut and dried.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

I largely agree with you. When I was first googling yesterday, before news stories were overtaken by the selection (so looking back at prediction news stories) he was considered a dark horse candidate on just a few lists. He was also described as "the least American of the Americans." He was definitely not chosen to go toe to toe. But I also believe that his election is a strong rebuke to Trumpism. Or at least as strong a politcal statement could be made in a non political framework. And frankly a rebuke to Vance's absolutely terrible interpretation of Catholicism, too.

(side note but I believe Vance acted horribly toward Pope Francis / the Vatican on what was the Pope's last day on earth. I doubt the Vatican will forget that; I certainly never will.).

Trump and Vance have broken your brains and you can only see the world through that paradigm. The church isn’t choosing a leader for 20+ years to rebuke a POTUS or VP who have less than four years left in power. There are far more important issues to deal with (Eastern Europe and Gaza, to name two).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

DP but that's not fair. Conclave was fiction, but most people familiar with the conclave process agree the movie got the process pretty correct, including the way politicking works behind the scenes and the fact that spiritual concerns still influence the process. The twist at the end was unrealistic, but the rest of the movie is considered to have a lot of accuracy.

So a bit different from thinking Airplane accurately reflects how airlines work.

In fact it was reported many cardinals, including Leo!, watched the film to learn more about process due to its reputation for accuracy. This was the first conclave for the 80% elected by Francis, including Leo, so the majority were trying to prepare as best they could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

I largely agree with you. When I was first googling yesterday, before news stories were overtaken by the selection (so looking back at prediction news stories) he was considered a dark horse candidate on just a few lists. He was also described as "the least American of the Americans." He was definitely not chosen to go toe to toe. But I also believe that his election is a strong rebuke to Trumpism. Or at least as strong a politcal statement could be made in a non political framework. And frankly a rebuke to Vance's absolutely terrible interpretation of Catholicism, too.

(side note but I believe Vance acted horribly toward Pope Francis / the Vatican on what was the Pope's last day on earth. I doubt the Vatican will forget that; I certainly never will.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.