Robert Francis Prevost: the moderate, good-humoured first US pope
Robert Francis Prevost – who has chosen the papal name Leo XIV – may not be the Latin American Jesuit wildcard that his predecessor, Pope Francis, was, but his election is similarly historic.
In the figure of the 69-year-old former head of the Augustinian order, the Roman Catholic church has its very first US leader. Until Thursday evening, the idea of the fisherman's ring being slipped on to a North American hand was seen as a fairly distant possibility. The Vatican's longstanding opposition to a US pope stemmed largely from the optics of having a pontiff from a political superpower and a country with such a hegemonic cultural and secular global influence.
But all that changed after a short conclave that chose a man who had been a cardinal for only a little more than two years. While his appointment is likely to be welcomed by progressive factions within the church, it was probably not the news that some of his more conservative, Trump-aligned US brother cardinals had been hoping for.
Despite being born in Chicago on 14 September 1955, Prevost has never been a typical US Catholic cleric – not least because he also holds Peruvian citizenship. After giving his solemn vows in 1981 and studying in Rome, he was sent to a mission in Peru. He would go on to spend many years there as judicial vicar and as a professor of canon, patristic and moral law at a seminary in Peru's third city, Trujillo, before being appointed bishop of another northern city, Chiclayo, in November 2014.
Cardinals following the election of Cardinal Robert F. Prevost as the 267th pope, choosing the name of Pope Leo XIV, at the Vatican, Thursday, May 8, 2025(AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)
Those who know him from his time in Peru – where the church has often been beset by tensions between leftwing proponents of liberation theology and uber-traditionalist Catholics – recall a calm and grounded leader who would sit down to breakfast with his fellow priests after morning prayers.
'No matter how many problems he has, he maintains good humour and joy,' the Rev Fidel Purisaca Vigil, the communications director for Prevost's old diocese in Chiclayo, told the Associated Press.
As a recent profile in Crux noted, Prevost acquired a reputation over the years as a hard-working and 'moderating influence' among Peru's ideologically disparate bishops, a talent that will prove invaluable during his papacy.
In January 2023, Francis – who himself had to manage competing theological strains during his time as leader of the Jesuits in the turbulent, violent and oppressive Argentina of the 1970s – made Prevost a cardinal.
People react after Cardinal Dominique Mamberti announced the election of Cardinal Robert F. Prevost as the 267th pope, choosing the name of Pope Leo XIV, at the Vatican, Thursday, May 8, 2025. (AP Photo/Luca Bruno)
Until Thursday evening, Prevost's most high-profile Vatican roles had been as president of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America and as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, which oversees the selection of new bishops from around the world.
His strong connection to Latin America, combined with his more recent roles at the top of the church, may have gone a long way in endearing him to those who would not usually countenance the idea of a US pope.
Prevost's recent CV also makes clear his proximity to Francis and he will doubtless be seen by many as a surprise, if welcome, kind of continuity candidate.
Donald Trump, who hailed the appointment, calling the arrival of the first US pope 'a Great Honor for our Country', seldom saw eye-to-eye with Francis. The late pope was forthright in his criticism of Trump's border and immigration policies – not least his desire to wall off Mexico.
'A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian,' Francis said in February 2016. 'This is not the gospel.'
Newly-elected Pope Leo, Robert Prevost, second from left, alongside his fellow Augustinians Fr Jerry Horan, Fr Pat Moran, and Fr Michael Brennock at St Augustine's Church in Cork in Easter 2007 to honour Peg Bolton and Marie Finn for their 50 years singing in the choir. Picture: Gerard Bonus
The blunt rebuke did not land well with Trump. 'For a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful,' he said in response. 'No leader, especially a religious leader, has the right to question another man's religion or faith.'
Whether Trump is right to be looking forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV – 'it will be a very meaningful moment!' – will depend on the degree to which the new bishop of Rome emulates his predecessor.
Towards the beginning of his widely admired papacy, Francis insisted that the church should not be remote, nor cloistered, nor complacent in its relationship with the world.
Newly elected Pope Leo XIV, Robert Prevost stands on the main central loggia balcony of the St Peter's Basilica for the first time, after the cardinals ended the conclave, in The Vatican, on May 8, 2025. Picture: TIZIANA FABI/AFP via Getty Images
''Mere administration' can no longer be enough,' he wrote. 'Throughout the world, let us be 'permanently in a state of mission'.'
Francis was adamant that the church he led for 12 years would be a church for 'todos, todos, todos' (everyone, everyone, everyone). He also said he preferred a church 'which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security'.
More than a decade on, the streets – from Gaza and Ukraine to Sudan and Kashmir – have only become more bloody and more violent. As he addressed the world from the loggia of St Peter's Basilica on Thursday, Pope Leo XIV's first words were: 'Peace be with you.'
His subsequent message, stressing the importance of peace, dialogue and missionary evangelisation, befitted the former leader of a mendicant order dedicated to poverty, service and pastoral work. But in his plea for peace to 'enter your hearts, to reach your families and all people, wherever they are', there was also, perhaps, more than a trace of his much-loved and much-missed predecessor.
- The Guardian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Journal
35 minutes ago
- The Journal
A new organisation has taken over Gaza food distribution with disastrous results - who's behind it?
WHILE THE ENTIRE population of the Gaza Strip in Palestine remains on the brink of famine, and Israel refuses to allow in thousands of truckloads of humanitarian aid, an organisation called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has taken over food distribution, with already disastrous results. The introduction of this new US and Israeli-backed entity into the besieged Palestinian territory has been part of Israel's plan to circumvent UN agencies and NGOs that already work in Gaza and have done so for decades. Those UN agencies and officials repeatedly condemned the establishment of the organisation, warning that it would allow Israel to weaponise the provision of food. NGOs said it would only serve to allow Israel to carry out a plan proposed by US President Donald Trump, and endorsed by Israeli government officials, which is to remove the Palestinian population from the area. At Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, people mourn those killed while gathering near a GHF centre on 3 June Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo Trump's proposal to 'clean out' Gaza has been widely condemned as a plan for ethnic cleansing. The man who was initially heading up the organisation, US military veteran Jake Wood, resigned the day before it began operating in Gaza, citing similar concerns to those expressed by the UN. Israel has said the GHF is a means of preventing food and other supplies from falling into the hands of Hamas. In mid-May, Tom Fletcher of the UN's humanitarian affairs office called the Israeli-US plan to take over aid distribution 'a cynical sideshow'. 'Please stay away' Israeli forces have on a number of occasions now opened fire on crowds of hungry people who were making their way to distribution points operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The term Orwellian may be overused in modern discourse but, in this case, it seems to be the most appropriate description for an ostensibly humanitarian organisation whose distribution centre almost immediately became the site of massacres. One witness to the latest Israeli attack told AFP: 'It's a trap.' Since Wednesday, the GHF has suspended all aid distribution until further notice after Israel declared roads leading to its hubs 'combat zones'. 'Please stay away from distribution sites for your safety,' the GHF said in a Facebook post on Friday. All of the Israeli attacks have taken place at a centre in the Tal al-Sultan area outside Rafah City in the far south of the territory. Advertisement Palestinians carry boxes and bags containing food and humanitarian aid packages delivered by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo The first deadly incident happened on the morning of Sunday, 25 May, when 31 Palestinians were killed by Israeli gunfire , according to the Gaza Civil Defence agency. The following morning, Israeli forces shot dead three people, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). And last Tuesday, 27 people were killed by Israeli fire near the site, according to health officials. Israel has denied firing on civilians, saying it fired 'warning shots ' and calling early reports 'false' while the GHF initially did likewise. The Israeli military did admit firing at 'suspects' who they said had moved in their soldiers' direction on Tuesday. Who funds and runs the GHF? The short answer to the question of who funds the GHF is, we don't know. The organisation is registered in the United States and while it has a website , all it says is: 'Delivering critical aid and support to the people of Gaza. More information coming soon'. The New York Times reported that the idea for an organisation like the GHF first came from Israel and opposition politician Yair Lapid has suggested it is funded by the Israeli government. People carry away supplies from a GHF centre in Gaza Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo The GHF said last month that a Western European country had donated more than $100 million but did not name the country. As for who runs the GHF, a little more is known. A former USAID contractor, John Acree, took over as John Wood's interim replacement and an evangelical preacher and former Trump campaign advisor named Reverend Johnnie Moore was named the new chairman on Tuesday. Also on Tuesday, US consulting firm Boston Consulting Group, whose participation had not previously been disclosed, terminated its contract with the GHF. With reporting from AFP Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... Our Explainer articles bring context and explanations in plain language to help make sense of complex issues. We're asking readers like you to support us so we can continue to provide helpful context to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Learn More Support The Journal
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
It's been one big beautiful bust-up for Trump and Musk
There were many tensions in the relationship between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Some had been clearly visible; others were well concealed. Their relationship was widely considered the most consequential in current US politics. The proximate cause of its end was the bill that will probably be Donald Trump's most consequential piece of legislation. The one big beautiful bill has caused one big beautiful bust-up. The United States has a budget problem, and a big one. Simply put, the US government spends more than it takes in taxes and uses borrowings to cover the gap. The borrowings have mounted up over the decades and now stand just north of $36 trillion. Elon Musk was touted (mostly by himself) as the man who was going to fix it. During the election campaign last year it was Musk who first raised the idea of a "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) in a podcast he did with candidate Trump in the middle of August. Musk said he would be willing to serve in the administration, leading DOGE. Because he was - and remains - very worried about the Federal debt and is convinced of the urgent need to reduce it. The DOGE plan was to use the techniques of Silicon Valley start-ups on the fusty world of government accounting and slash and burn its way quickly to big savings that would help to close out the tax and spend gap. Cutting the deficit was the strategic goal, and Trump campaigned on the idea. As long as lenders - foreign and domestic - are happy to lend money to the US government for an interest rate it can afford, and the economy is growing fast enough, borrowing to make up a shortfall for a few years shouldn't be a problem. And the US market for government bonds is the world's deepest and most liquid, so lenders don't look for high interest rates because they can get their money out any time they want, and make a reasonable return lending to Uncle Sam. Right up until the moment they don't - and then $36 trillion becomes a very big problem. We have seen this up close and personal in Ireland during the financial crisis. And although the US is a long way from Ireland's financial woes, when interest rates start to rise (the famous 'yield' on government bonds goes up) governments get worried. This is exactly what happened in the US recently over the president's tariff policy. Such was the disruption to trade and commerce, investors rethought their strategy and demanded higher interest rates for lending money to the government. The so called "bond market vigilantes" didn't like the Trump tariffs, and put pressure on the government in ways ordinary voters cannot. They did for former UK prime minister Liz Truss three years ago, and wreaked havoc among the PIIGS 15 years ago (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain - all doing a lot better than the Euro area average these days, thank you for asking). So Trump already has the vigilantes on his back over trade. But he promised the voters tariffs, and said the money raised from them would help balance the government books. Trump slammed Biden for his deficit spending (6.5% of GDP last year - the Maastricht Treaty limit in Europe is 3%, and an "excessive deficit" ruling requires governments to set up a plan to get the deficit back in range - ideally balanced over a number of years). In America they have a debt limit - an effort by Congress to rein in the constant deficit spending. Every so often - these days with increasing frequency - the Congress has to raise the debt limit, so the government can borrow more to fund day-to-day activities. If not, the government starts to shut down. This has actually happened in the past. There have been three last minute raises in the debt limit in the past year, as the anti-borrowing members of Congress engaged in brinkmanship to try and bring a runaway budget under control. Enter the man with a chainsaw and baseball cap. I watched from the back of the hall in a convention centre hotel in National Harbour, Maryland, as Musk took to the stage at the C-PAC annual DC gathering of Conservative political activists. The chainsaw was a gift from Argentina's President Javier Milei, who presented it to him on stage. During that August podcast with Trump, Musk cited Milei as an example the US should follow, as did Trump himself - "the new head of a place called Argentina, he's a big MAGA fan: he ran on MAGA and he took it to extremes, and I hear he's doing really a terrific really cut and I'm hearing they are starting to do really well". Musk concurred, saying Milei was cutting government spending, simplifying regulations and doing things "that make sense". He said Argentina was a lesson for the US in what can go bad - a country that used to be very wealthy but which had gone way off course by poor policy choices. Musk tried earnestly to tell Trump his belief that government over-spending causes inflation, that "if the government spends far more than it brings in, that increases the money supply, and if the money supply increases faster than the rate of goods and services - that's inflation", he told a clearly bored Trump, who started talking about how he had rebuilt the US military in his first term in office, before getting the message at the third time of asking: "I think it would be great to just have a government efficiency commission that takes a look at these things and just ensures that the taxpayers' money is spent in a good way. And I'd be happy to help out on such a commission," said Elon Musk. "I'd love it", said Donald Trump, finally. "You're the greatest cutter", he said laying on the praise for Musk's record in business. "You walk into a company, they want to go on strike, you say that's OK - you're all gone. You're all gone. So every one of you is gone. So you are the greatest." It was the beginning of the bromance, as Musk invested his hopes in the candidate, and Trump strapped on the booster rocket of Elon's fame and prestige. That, and the hundreds of millions of dollars Musk threw at the Trump election campaign, including paying voters to register to vote, with the chance of winning a million-dollar jackpot in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And there was the undeniable star power of Musk himself - tech zillionaire, car maker, rocketship maker, owner of a social media platform, paymaster to Neuralink (a genuinely useful company) and Starlink, the satellite internet company. Truly Musk was and remains a rockstar of the digital age. He brought new, hard to reach voters into the Trump rallies and their more important TV audiences, adding even more energy to the already high-wattage Trump himself brought to bear. He was particularly important in cementing the coalition of 'tech and crypto bros', and the 'manosphere' of podcasters that brought a significant lump of younger male voters over to Trump. In a tight election, it made a difference - possibly the difference. He had the mission, he had the means, he had a sort of a mandate from the voters, and most of all he had permission from Trump - permission to try and cut government spending, abolish departments, fire civil servants - engage in all the fast, simple, direct action many of the MAGA faithful wanted to see: if it inflicted pain on the hated Washington DC and its Deep State denizens, even better. So Musk moved fast and broke things and predictably ran into trouble with the actual cabinet members - the ones who actually are in charge of government departments, the ones who actually had to appear before Congress and do hearings to see if they were suitable for the job and would adhere to the constitution and all that. The first report of a screaming match at a cabinet gathering was not long in coming. More followed as February progressed. Still the cult of Elon Musk grew in the outside world, even as the reality of DOGE was slowly revealed as it attempted to smash the granite edifice of the federal government and its two and a half centuries of political deal-making and legal fortifications. A revolution was afoot in Washington, I wrote in early February, in a piece casting Musk as the Robespierre of this revolt. It was a not so subtle nod to the widely held view in DC that Musk would not last long in government, that his way of cutting just wasn't sustainable. Nor would it result in enough savings. It would just annoy people. And so it did, not just cabinet secretaries, but more importantly, Trump himself. "Elon was wearing thin", he posted on his social media platform Truth Social on Thursday. "I asked him to leave, I took away his EV (electric vehicle) Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" He followed it up with another post, touching on the big conflict of interest that always dogged Musk's government work: "The easiest way to save in our budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised Biden didn't do it." In his meeting with the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (who skillfully said almost nothing, apart from a well aimed dart on Ukraine), Trump rose to a reporter's bait and spoke out against Musk over his attack on the One Big Beautiful Bill: "I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. "He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair. "We want to have cars of all types, electric. We want to have electric, but we want to have a gasoline combustion. We want to have hybrids. We want to be able to sell everything. "And when that was cut, and Congress wanted to cut it, he became a little bit different, and I can understand that, but he knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left. "And if you saw the statements he made about me, which I'm sure you can get very easily, it's very fresh on tape, he said the most beautiful things about me, and he hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next. But I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot." Asked by a reporter in the Oval Office if Musk had raised his concerns about the tax and spend bill privately, and if Trump's own comments were just sour grapes, the President replied: "No, he worked hard and he did a good job, and I'll be honest, I think he misses the place. I think he got out there and all of a sudden he wasn't in this beautiful Oval Office, and he's got nice offices too - but there's something about this, it's just a special place. "World War One, it started and it ended here, and World War Two and so many other things. Everything big comes right from this, this beautiful space. It's now much more beautiful than it was six months ago. A lot of good things are happening in this room. "And I'll tell you, he's not the first: people leave my administration, and they love us. And then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is. It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it, but we have it with others too. "They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour is gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile. I don't know what it is. Someday you'll write a book about it, and you'll let us know." Musk's responses to his monstering on live TV - about 80 posts on his X social media platform in which he exhibited the full range of political skills of the average moody 16-year-old - veered from threatening to immediately decommission SpaceX's fleet of Dragon spaceships, used by NASA to ferry supplies and astronauts to the International Space Station, to claiming that the reason the Trump administration hasn't fulfilled its promise to publish the Epstein files is that Trump features in them. It is a matter of public record - i.e. newspaper articles, videos, photographs - that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein knew each other and attended social events together, including parties at Epstein's Manhattan mansion. These were mostly in the 1980s and 90s, when Trump would attend the opening of an envelope if it would get him a mention in the New York Post. They are not the smoking gun Mr Musk thinks they are. They are barely the smoke. The row that had been coming for months was now on full public display. The gloves were off, and what used to be called a Twitter fight was under way, the richest man in the world and the president of the United States behaving in an undignified manner for the entertainment of the masses. Rarely has the popcorn emoji on mobile phones been so thoroughly overused. But Trump is the winner here. Musk is simply the latest meal for the apex predator of American politics. Like the nature films where the young buck tries to take on the old alpha and is seen off, so Musk is away with his tail between his legs. His excursion into the swamp of DC politics ended in pain, humiliation and considerable financial loss. The share price of Tesla, Musk's main source of wealth, are down 30% since the start of the year, as enough consumers reacted with a boycott of the electric carmakers products that it caused a crisis at the company that required his full-time attention to fix. And his full-time keeping quiet on the national political stage. His personal loss of fortune since joining the Trump administration was estimated at $27bn dollars. The Irish banking crisis cost €31bn. Once Tesla reported its first quarter results, the clock was ticking very fast for Elon Musk's tenure in the US government. That's when it became generally known that he was on a 130-day contract that would finish at the end of May. Then he was said to be in wind-down mode, withdrawing from government having established the core DOGE team (featuring a precocious 19-year-old known as "big balls"). Both sides tried to handle the departure with grace and formality. But then once he had his US equivalent of a P45 in his hand, Musk launched a blistering attack on Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), calling it "disgusting" and "pork-filled" earlier this week. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk wrote on X on Tuesday night. Was the whole DOGE thing just a distraction, something to create the kind of instability that Trump thrives in so that he could get his real priorities through the system - a system he knew far more about than Musk? Was Musk just used by Trump? Will Musk seek revenge by funding primary challengers to vulnerable Republicans in next year's mid-term elections? California Democrat Ro Khanna says the party should embrace Elon Musk. Musk himself is now musing on starting a third party "that actually represents the 80% of Americans in the middle". Will any of this come to pass? Who knows. All that is sure is that the OBBB is still facing the fundamental arithmetic problem we started off with. The bill as it stands would make the tax cuts that Trump introduced in 2017 permanent. They are currently due to expire next year. Trump likes to call them the biggest tax cut ever: if they do expire, Americans will accordingly face the biggest tax hike ever. Obviously no sitting politicians wants that on their record. So Trump must have those tax cuts made permanent. And that will cost money. Which this bill does not prove for. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill as approved by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate contains $3.7bn in tax cuts. Offsetting this is $1.3 trillion in proposed spending cuts. That leaves a $2.4 trillion dollar hole in the accounts, to be filled by more borrowing. Trump disputes the CBO figures, saying they don't take sufficient account of the economic growth he says will come from extending the tax cuts and the investment flowing from his 'America First' trade and tariff policy. There will also be some additional revenue from tariffs, he argues - but nowhere near enough to close the gap. But $2.4 trillion is a lot of hope value. Musk said at the outset he hoped to cut a trillion off government spending through DOGE. The current estimates say DOGE has at best achieved about a fifth of that, probably less. And now Elon is gone. Maybe "Big Balls" and his chums can do it - but again there is a lot of hope value in the proposition. Meanwhile the bond market vigilantes are poised, and the balanced budget fundamentalists in the Senate are talking up a last stand. There are two of them - Rand Paul and Ron Johnson. Trump could lose these two and still carry the day in the Senate, where the Republicans have a 53-47 majority. Four other Republican senators talk a good game on the Federal debt, but are swayable, and will probably be swayed by Trump - especially now he has dispatched the richest man in the world with brutality and cunning. In this he was aided by Steve Bannon, the godfather of MAGA, who despises Musk and the entire Silicon Valley set, regarding them as tech plutocrats intent on robbing Americans of their money and their liberty - especially the latter. He has also called for an investigation into Musk's immigration status, dubbing him an illegal immigrant from Africa. And he urged Trump to seize control of Starlink. Musk called Bannon "a Communist retard". MAGA probably won't miss Musk. But don't rule out a reconciliation, especially if it suits Trump. Plenty of Trump supporters have been calling for a healing of the rift. Former Russian President Dimitry Medvedev jokingly offered Russian mediation to end the hostilities between Trump and Musk - for a fee. In the meantime, all of Trump's domestic energy will be focused on getting the OBBB across the line in the Senate. He wants it ready to sign by 4 July, of course.
Irish Independent
5 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Philip Bump: Elon Musk has already lost the war as Republicans rally behind Donald Trump
No one really knows where the billionaire and the president will go from here ©Washington Post There is only one person who is unquestionably able to both maintain a high level of public visibility and stay on president Donald Trump's good side. That person is Donald Trump. Everyone else who sidles up to him suffers from the deficit that they are not Trump himself. They therefore risk discovering that Trump has suddenly turned against them, bringing his fervent base of support – tens of millions of Americans strong – with him. Options from that point are limited: obsequious efforts at reintegration with the president or lining up for one of the modest but endless slots reserved in the public conversation for Trump's former allies.
