Warm American welcome for new pope masks US church's deep divide
Evelyn Morris serves hot dogs at \"The Wieners Circle\", which displayed a sign outside its restaurant written in Latin that reads: \"He has eaten our dogs\", following the election of Pope Leo XIV, in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., May 9, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Osorio
As Pope Leo XIV celebrated his first Mass as pontiff at the Sistine Chapel on Friday, he spoke a few words in English. It was a reminder - if anyone needed one - that a baseball fan who hails from Chicago was now leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
For American Catholics, the elevation of Robert Prevost to the papacy was a shock, a cause for celebration and a chance for some fun. After the announcement, social media lit up with memes about Leo eating hotdogs, bringing deep dish pizza to the Vatican and switching out the Popemobile for a pickup truck.
But despite the warm embrace of his countrymen and women, the deeply divided U.S. Catholic Church may ultimately pose some of the most serious challenges for the new pope.
Those divisions, which mirror more generalized political polarization in the U.S., are evident in a host of issues: immigration, same-sex couples, climate change and the role of women in the Church, among other issues.
The split has grown wider in recent years as a growing segment of conservative Catholics becomes increasingly vocal and assertive. Pope Francis - who was seen as more progressive-minded thanks to his views on climate change and migration - saw his popularity decline in the U.S. over time as the conservative influence helped shape opinions: In 2024, about 75% of U.S. Catholics viewed Francis favorably, down from about 90% in 2015, according to a Pew Research Poll.
Cathleen Kaveny, a theology and law professor at Boston College who has closely tracked the split between conservatives and progressives, said the new pontiff could salve some wounds between the sides while deepening others.
Kaveny expects Leo, with his expertise in canon law and administration at the Vatican, to embrace his predecessor's vision of a church dedicated to the poor and open to all, what she described as a 'trickle-up theory of paying attention to people and what they think.'
If Kaveny proves right, traditionalists and conservatives may balk. 'Pope Leo XIV is an institution builder and he will institutionalize Pope Francis' visions - or, at least, certain aspects of them,' she said.
Steve Bannon, the conservative strategist and Catholic who advised President Donald Trump during his first term, also expects continuity. "He's an ideological twin to Francis," he said in an interview with Reuters.
PRESIDENT AS POPE
That said, American conservatives may appreciate that the new pontiff will likely show more discretion than Francis, Kaveny said, perhaps shifting focus away from some of the more contentious issues such outreach to the gay and transgender faithful.
In their politics, U.S. Catholics have swung more conservative, with right-wing media and Trump-era culture wars combining as powerful influence within the church. Catholics voted for Trump 59%-39% over Democrat Kamala Harris in the November presidential election, a 12 percentage point swing from 2020, according to exit polling by Edison Research.
Trump, whose cabinet is about one-third Catholic, expressed pride at having an American in charge at the Vatican. An AI-generated image of Trump dressed as pope was posted on a White House social media account last weekend; the president told reporters he had nothing to do with the image.
Despite Trump's welcome, Leo may also find himself in the crosshairs of Trump supporters, some of whom have described him as a globalist, liberal and woke-minded. Leo has a handful of disapproving posts about the Republican leaders' policies on the X account of Robert Prevost. Among the posts are one questioning Trump's migration policies and another reposting an article headlined, "JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others."
"He's got that same Latin American liberation theology radicalness to him," Bannon said, referring to Leo. "He's virulently anti-Trump."
The share of Americans who describe themselves as Catholic has changed little over the last decade, hovering around 20%, according to Pew Research. During that time, the Church has been rocked by sex abuse scandals that have resulted in costly legal settlements and bankruptcies, while dragging on church attendance and donations.
A number of U.S. dioceses, including in Leo's hometown of Chicago, have been forced to close churches, while others have fallen into disrepair.
Despite Francis' cost-cutting efforts and financial management, the Vatican faces an $94.22 million budget shortfall, two sources have told Reuters, and a much larger funding gap in its pension fund.
'NO PLACE TO GO'
David Gibson, director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University, said that Leo's ascension cements the movement ignited by Francis to broaden the appeal of the church and make it accessible to more people. At times that has come at the expense of tradition, such as the move by Francis to restrict the celebration of the Latin Mass, which enraged his conservative critics.
"The conservatives have no place to go. Leo is 69 and could be around for 15 to 20 years,' Gibson said. 'This is the church now - finding how to preach the Gospel in modern times. The conservatives will have to figure out how they're going to live in that church.'
Still, Leo is an American, and experts said it remained to be seen how the novelty of the first U.S.-born pope - and his understanding of U.S. Catholics - could play out.
"There's a certain kind of opportunity he has in this moment to appeal and to be a symbol that can unite and that could go a way in pulling us together," said Nancy Pineda-Madrid, associate professor of theology at Boston College.
"I think in many ways he can stretch us here in the United States in ways that are wonderful and rich," she said. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
23 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The US Supreme Court most recently let the Trump administration end temporary legal status provided to migrants for humanitarian reasons. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies – mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signalled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Mr Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Mr Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on May 30 lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Dr Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' he added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Mr Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Mr Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice – on April 7 and on May 16 – have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Mr Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention centre in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster', the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Professor Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, she said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States'. A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Mr Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return him to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government US$6 million ($7.74 million). Dr Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Dr Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Mr Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Prof Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' she said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Mr Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017 to 2021. The Supreme Court gave Mr Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Mr Trump's bid to end a programme that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants – often called 'Dreamers' – who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Mr Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship – a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being sent there. The judge on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Judge Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Dr Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
39 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Far right Proud Boys seek $129 million over US Capitol riot convictions
Former Proud Boys leaders Joseph Biggs and Enrique Tarrio speak to reporters on Feb 21 outside the Capitol in Washington. PHOTO: REUTERS Far right Proud Boys seek $129 million over US Capitol riot convictions MIAMI, Florida - Five members of the far right Proud Boys convicted of orchestrating the US Capitol riot filed a lawsuit on June 6 seeking US$100 million (S$129 million) in damages for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. The suit, filed in a federal court in Florida, claims the five were victims of 'corrupt and politically motivated persecution' intended to punish political allies of President Donald Trump. Among the five plaintiffs is former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for directing the Jan 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden. Tarrio, whose sentence for seditious conspiracy was the longest doled out to Capitol rioters, was among the more than 1,500 Trump supporters pardoned by the Republican president on his first day in office. In their suit, the Proud Boys members said they were victims of 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump.' They accused government prosecutors of 'evidence tampering, witness intimidation, violations of attorney-client privilege, and placing spies to report on trial strategy.' It said their convictions were 'the modern equivalent of placing one's enemies' heads on a spike outside the town wall as a warning to any who would think to challenge the status quo.' The Proud Boys members demanded a jury trial and punitive damages of US$100 million. The Trump administration agreed in May to pay nearly US$5 million to the family of a woman shot dead by a police officer during the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol. Ashli Babbitt, 35, was shot as she tried to climb through a window leading to the House Speaker's lobby during the assault on Congress by Trump supporters. Ms Babbitt's estate filed a wrongful death suit last year seeking US$30 million. The case had been scheduled to go on trial, but the Justice Department reversed course after Mr Trump won the November 2024 election and entered into settlement talks. The Capitol assault, which left more than 140 police officers injured, followed a fiery speech by then-president Trump to tens of thousands of his supporters near the White House in which he repeated his false claims that he won the 2020 race. He then encouraged the crowd to march on Congress. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
US, China set for trade talks in London on Monday
FILE PHOTO: U.S. and Chinese flags are seen in this illustration taken March 20, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File photo WASHINGTON - Three of President Donald Trump's top aides will face their Chinese counterparts in London on Monday for talks to resolve a trade dispute between the world's two largest economies that has kept global markets on edge. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will represent Washington in the talks, said Trump, who announced the talks in a post on his Truth Social platform but provided no more details. It was not immediately clear who would represent China. The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for more details. "The meeting should go very well," Trump wrote. The scheduling of the meeting comes a day after Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping in a rare leader-to-leader call amid weeks of brewing trade tensions and a battle over critical minerals. Trump and Xi agreed to visit one another and asked their staffs to hold talks in the meantime. Both countries are under pressure to relieve tensions, with the global economy under pressure over Chinese control over the rare earth mineral exports of which it is the dominant producer and investors more broadly anxious about Trump's wider effort to impose tariffs on goods from most U.S. trading partners. China, meanwhile, has seen its own supply of key U.S. imports like chip-design software and nuclear plant parts curtailed. The countries struck a 90-day deal on May 12 in Geneva to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's January inauguration. That preliminary deal sparked a global relief rally in stock markets, and U.S. indexes that had been in or near bear market levels have recouped the lion's share of their losses. The S&P 500 stock index, which at its lowest point in early April was down nearly 18% after Trump unveiled his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs on goods from across the globe, is now only about 2% below its record high from mid-February. The final third of that rally followed the U.S.-China truce struck in Geneva. Still, that temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and U.S. complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened an array of punitive measures on trading partners, only to revoke some of them at the last minute. The on-again, off-again approach has baffled world leaders and spooked business executives. Beijing sees mineral exports as a source of leverage - halting those exports could put domestic political pressure on the Republican U.S. president if economic growth sags because companies cannot make mineral-powered products. In recent years, the United States has identified China as its top geopolitical rival and the only country in the world able to challenge the U.S. economically and militarily. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
