
How Pope Leo XIV will navigate conservative divide in church, US
"The cardinals did not elect somebody who was going to reject the legacy of Pope Francis and take us back to the old church," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and columnist for Religion News Service. "That day is over."
The 133-member conclave, an assembly of cardinals for which Francis appointed 80% of its members, concluded May 8 with the election of Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost. The new pope's background and early remarks since his election, plus the significance as the first U.S.-born pope, is readjusting an earlier calculus for future change and any ensuing conflict.
In some of Leo's earliest comments since his election on the idea of reform, the new pope said in a May 10 meeting with cardinals he hopes to further some of the changes that Francis championed. Specifically, the new pope cited his predecessor's work on synodality, referring to Francis' call for "decentralization" in policy decision-making, and "dialogue with the contemporary world in its various components and realities."
These same reforms were at the heart of an escalating conflict between the Vatican and an emergent Catholic right in the U.S., a movement that seeks more independence for American Catholicism. But earlier expectations about that widening division is upended with Leo's election.
"This is incredibly interesting because it changes the relationships between the Vatican and the West, and the Vatican and U.S. Catholicism," Massimo Faggioli, a leading Catholic theologian and professor at Villanova University, said about Prevost's election. "It's really a different set of cards that the conclave has given to the papacy."
Prevost, who most recently served as a top Vatican administrator who managed bishop appointments for Francis, spent most of his 44-year career in ministry in his hometown of Chicago and in Peru. He's a dual citizen in the U.S. and Peru, and is also a member of and leading figure within the Order of St. Augustine.
Faggioli and Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of theology and law at Boston College, said Leo's American bona fides make it harder for U.S. critics to attack the new pope with some of the same claims they leveled against his predecessor.
"You got someone who has a global outlook who's rooted in the American heartland," Kaveny said. "You've got a pope who understands America and who can't be dismissed as, 'You don't like Americans.'"
More: Pope Leo XIV visits Francis' tomb, says he wants to uphold 'precious legacy'
'Continuity' with Francis, not 'repetition'
Conservatives over time revolted against reforms that Francis championed to change how the church operated due to fears they could alter Catholic doctrine.
Examples of some of these key changes under Francis were revised procedures for an assembly of bishops known as a synod by allowing women and laity to participate, and his appointment of women to lead certain Vatican agencies.
Backlash on the right, motivated by a combination of ideological and ecclesiological grievances, popularized attitudes that questioned the legitimacy of Francis' authority. Francis sought to quell some of that uprising, and Leo in his prior post even had a role it in along the way.
In his role as a Vatican administrator over bishop appointments, Leo helped manage discipline for the incendiary Texas bishop Rev. Joseph Strickland, according to National Catholic Reporter. The Vatican removed Strickland from his post over the Diocese of Tyler in 2023, and for similar reasons pursued disciplinary action against two other high-ranking church leaders in the U.S. around the same time.
Reese, author of the 1998 book "Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church," said Leo's background with bishop oversight signals "we are going to have a lot of new bishops in the United States who are more supportive of what Francis did and what Leo is going to be trying to do."
This emergent Catholic right in the U.S. has deepened in its loyalty to President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert. Vance is among several Catholics in Trump's cabinet, some of whom are allies of this emergent Catholic right and its belief in applying narrow religious criteria to government policy.
These tensions contributed to clashes between Francis and the Trump administration, such as a February dispute between the late pope and Vance over immigration enforcement. Likewise, proponents of Francis within in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also expressed concern about Trump's immigration agenda.
Amid that controversy, Prevost shared on social media articles that criticized Vance's stance on immigration and comments about Francis. "I do not expect him (Leo XIV) to move quickly, but he will bring a geopolitical awareness to deal with the Trump administration," said Mathew Schmalz, a professor of religious studies at The College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Leo has said little about other major social and cultural issues that have animated the emergent Catholic right, especially inclusion for LGBTQ+ Catholics and women's ordination as deacons. Plus, Kaveny and Faggioli said that even if Leo engages these future feuds that he will do so with a different flare.
"This election is an election of continuity with Francis," Faggioli said. "It will not be a repetition of Francis."
Liam Adams covers religion for The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at ladams@tennessean.com or on social media @liamsadams.
Contributing: Marc Ramirez in Texas, Deena Yellin in New Jersey and Peter Kramer in New York.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Russell Martin looks set to win race to become new Rangers head coach
The former Rangers and Scotland defender was reported to be finalising personal terms after accepting the position, which became vacant in February when Philippe Clement was sacked. The apparently imminent appointment is the latest in a series of major developments at Ibrox. An American consortium led by Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises secured a majority shareholding on Friday and new sporting director Kevin Thelwell officially began work on Monday. Thelwell stated on his first day that the recruitment of a new head coach would come to a conclusion 'in the coming days'. Outgoing Real Madrid assistant manager Davide Ancelotti and former Rangers boss Steven Gerrard – who reportedly pulled out of the running – were also among the leading candidates. Martin has been without a club since being sacked by Southampton in December after a 5-0 home defeat to Tottenham left Saints bottom of the Premier League on five points after 16 matches. The 39-year-old had secured promotion in his first season in charge thanks to a Championship play-off final win against Leeds. The ex-Peterborough and Norwich captain began his managerial career in November 2019 when he stepped up from MK Dons' playing squad to take charge of his team. We can confirm that we have taken the difficult decision to part ways with our Men's First Team Manager, Russell Martin. — Southampton FC (@SouthamptonFC) December 15, 2024 Martin steered the Dons clear of relegation danger before the pandemic struck and his side finished 13th in Sky Bet League One in what proved to be his only full campaign in charge. Martin moved to Swansea in August 2021 after the Welsh club made an official approach to MK Dons on the eve of their season opener, leading them to 15th and then 10th-placed finishes in the Championship before moving to Southampton. Martin's firm commitment to possession-based football drew some criticism as Saints struggled in the top flight and he defended his approach days before the fateful meeting with Ange Postecoglou's Spurs side. 'I get criticised for the same thing (as Postecoglou),' said Martin. 'About being stubborn and all that stuff. But if you believe in something and it's taken you a certain way in life then to deviate too far from that is crazy. 'I can't speak for him but we are also adapting. We adapt shape, approach, personnel, but with the same consistency about what is important for us, with the same concept of the game. We can't deviate too far from that otherwise we become nothing, really.' Martin now looks set to take his principles up against another purveyor of possession-based football and one of his predecessors as Swansea manager, Brendan Rodgers, whose Celtic side recently won their 13th title in 14 years. Although Rangers have only won three major trophies since emerging from the Ibrox liquidation crisis of 2012, Martin will have a good grasp of the fans' demands and expectations, which have been raised by the takeover and the promise of a £20million investment in the playing side. Martin spent the second half of the 2017-18 season on loan from Norwich at Rangers, playing under caretaker managers Graeme Murty and then Jimmy Nicholl. His appearances included a 4-0 Scottish Cup semi-final defeat and 5-0 loss against a Rodgers-led Celtic side as Rangers finished third in the Premiership.


Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Elon Musk's brutal two-word takedown of Donald Trump's big tax break bill
Donald Trump's administration is pushing a piece of legislation in the United States which will be central to its agenda and will mean tax breaks as well as spending cuts Elon Musk lashed out at Donald Trump's"big, beautiful bill" of tax breaks and spending cuts calling it a "disgusting abomination" and testing his relationship with the President. The broadside at the centrepiece of Republicans' legislative agenda, which Musk issued on his social media platform X, came just days after the president gave him a celebratory Oval Office farewell that marked the end of his work for the administration, where he spearheaded the Department of Government Efficiency. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk posted on X. "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." The legislation, which has passed the House and is currently under debate in the Senate, would curtail subsidies that benefit Tesla, Musk's electric automaker. The tech billionaire followed his criticism with a threat aimed at Republicans. "In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people," he wrote in another X post. It's a sharp shift for Musk, the world's richest person who spent at least $250 million supporting Trump's campaign last year. He previously pledged to help defeat Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump, but now he's suggesting voting them out if they advance the president's legislative priority. However, it's unclear how Musk will follow through on his criticism. He recently said that he would spend "a lot less" on political campaigns, though he left the door open to political involvement "if I see a reason." The tech titan's missives could cause headaches for Republicans on Capitol Hill, who face conflicting demands from Trump and their party's wealthiest benefactor. Alex Conant, a Republican strategist, said "it's not helpful" to have Musk criticizing the legislation, but he doesn't expect lawmakers to side with Musk over Trump. "Senate Republicans are not going to let the tax cuts expire," Mr Conant said. "It just makes leadership's job that much harder to wrangle the holdouts." Trump can change the outcome in Republican primaries with his endorsements; Musk doesn't wield that level of influence, Mr Conant said. "No matter what Elon Musk or anybody else says - and I don't want to diminish him because I don't think that's fair - it's still going to be second fiddle to President Trump," said Republican West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. Musk's business interests stand to take a hit if lawmakers approve Trump's bill, which would slash funding for electric vehicles and related technologies. Musk is the chief executive of Tesla, the nation's largest electric vehicle manufacturer, and SpaceX, which has massive defence contracts. Last month, Musk said he was "disappointed" by the spending bill, a much milder criticism than the broadside he levelled on Tuesday. The budget package seeks to extend tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump's first term at the White House, and add new ones he campaigned on. It also includes a massive build-up of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security. To defray some of the lost tax revenue to the government and limit piling onto the nation's $36 trillion debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services. Musk's post threw another hurdle in front of Senate Majority Leader John Thune's already complex task to pass a bill in time for Trump to achieve his goal of signing it by July 4. The South Dakota Republican has few votes to spare in the GOP's slim 53-seat majority. Two of the Senate's most fiscally hawkish Republicans quickly backed Musk. "We can and must do better," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on X. Utah Sen. Mike Lee said "federal spending has become excessive," adding that it causes inflation and "weaponizes government." Still, Trump enjoys fierce loyalty among the GOP base, and in the end, his opinion may be the only one that matters. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt played down Musk's criticism. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," Ms Leavitt said, and Musk's post "doesn't change the president's opinion." The tension in the GOP delighted Democrats, who found themselves in the unlikely position of siding with Musk. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than $4.5 trillion in tax cuts - with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home. "We're in complete agreement," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said of Musk. The New York Democratic lawmaker stood alongside a poster-sized printout of Musk's post during a Capitol news conference. The last time Musk weighed in significantly on legislation, the scenario was far different. His power was ascendant after the election, with Trump joining him for a rocket test in Texas and appointing him to spearhead the Department of Government Efficiency. During the transition period, Musk started whipping up opposition to legislation that would prevent a government shutdown, posting about it repeatedly on X, his social media platform. Trump soon weighed in, encouraging Republicans to back out of a bipartisan deal. Lawmakers eventually patched together a new agreement.


New European
2 hours ago
- New European
Trump's war against the law
The earliest source is the newspaper editor and publisher Horace Greeley's book The American Conflict (1865), which reports Old Hickory's alleged declaration on the basis of a former congressman's recollection. According to Jackson's best biographer, Jon Meacham, the claim was 'historically questionable but philosophically true'. As far as historians can tell, President Andrew Jackson never uttered the threat to the chief justice that is still so frequently attributed to him. In 1832, after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Cherokee nation in Worcester v Georgia, Jackson supposedly said: 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.' What Jackson did say to his longtime associate, John Coffee, was: 'The decision of the Supreme Court has felt still-born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate'. All of which matters because the spirit of Jackson is now routinely invoked by the MAGA movement as Donald Trump wages a fast-escalating war with the courts. As far back as 2021, JD Vance said that his advice to his future boss would be to fire all civil servants: 'And when the courts – because you will get taken to court – and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' More recently, on February 9, the vice president posted on X: 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power'. In a podcast released on May 21, he warmed to his theme in conversation with Ross Douthat of the New York Times. 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people'. Chief justice John Roberts, Vance continued, was failing in his supervision of the judiciary: 'You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.' The Democratic Party is in a state of aphasic shock, paralysed by the electoral disaster of November 5. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, who, with a tiny number of exceptions, are craven in their obedience to Trump. That leaves journalists, a great many of whom continue, valiantly, to speak truth to power; but do so in the face of increasing intimidation and, in some cases, knowing that their proprietors have business exposure outside the media sector that makes them fearful of Trump. So – in practice – the line that stands between the republic and authoritarianism is judicial. At the time of writing, there have been 251 legal challenges to this administration, whose actions have been halted in at least 181 cases. Time and again, Trump and his senior officials have found themselves obstructed by judges from all over the country whose orders have nationwide force. As the solicitor general, D John Sauer, has complained, this means that the government has 'to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere'. Last Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled against the president's tariff regime, finding that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and that 'any interpretation of IEEPA [the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act] that delegates unlimited tariff authority [to the president] is unconstitutional.' Helpfully reposting photos of the three trade court judges, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, claimed on May 29 that 'We are living under a judicial tyranny'. A federal appeals court last week granted a suspension of the order, meaning that, for now, Trump can pursue his deranged tariff strategy, pending further legal action. On Truth Social, he posted that he hoped 'the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.' But will it? On Friday, the highest court in the land gave the administration interim approval to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian programme to grant temporary residency to more than 500,000 migrants facing political turmoil or warfare. This 'humanitarian parole' system is intended to help people from countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti. On May 19, the supreme court also gave emergency approval to the government to lift the separate 'Temporary Protected Status' from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. The case is still subject to appeal. But immigration officials may now proceed with mass deportation – perhaps to the Salvadoran gulag. Yet the president and his allies remain furious with the general response of the judiciary to MAGA's egregious 'remigration' plan. On April 7, the supreme court ruled that the government must give 'constitutionally adequate notice' to individuals before their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act; 12 days later, it intervened again, this time in the middle of the night, to block deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the same antiquated legislation. The court has also ruled that the administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old migrant who had been living in Maryland for 13 years, sent back to El Salvador after what the government has admitted was an 'administrative error'. In this case, as in many others, Trump and his team have opted for what the US legal scholars Leah Litman and Daniel Deacon refer to aptly as 'legalistic noncompliance': quibbling over what 'facilitate' means precisely, resorting to pedantry and slow-walking action mandated by the courts. With characteristic indifference to the responsibilities of his office – not to mention the oath that he took – the president himself has become an expert in non-expertise, claiming to have insufficient legal knowledge to offer an opinion on even the most basic juristic questions. Asked on NBC's Meet the Press on May 4 whether citizens and non-citizens alike deserved due process, Trump said, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer.' Pressed by Kristen Welker on the substance of the Fifth Amendment which refers to the rights of the 'person', the president replied: 'It might say that – but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.' In an interview with the Atlantic to mark the first 100 days of his second presidency, Trump insisted that he would abide by any supreme court ruling – but went on to complain that 'we have some judges that are very, very tough. I believe you could have a 100% case – in other words, a case that's not losable – and you will lose violently. Some of these judges are really unfair.' His language was less restrained in a special Memorial Day post on Truth Social in which he attacked 'JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER AND RAPE AGAIN – ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY'. Which shows that this is a temperamental as well as a constitutional clash. Trump demands instant gratification; the courts exist to deliberate. This incompatibility is now becoming perilous for the republic. Miller, meanwhile, has said that the administration is 'actively looking' at suspending habeas corpus for migrants – the individual's fundamental legal right to challenge his or her detention. In this context, it is worth noting that Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, revealed in a senate committee hearing on May 20 that she completely misunderstood this most basic legal doctrine, defining it as 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Even more revealing was what Miller went on to say: 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' In other words, the government will abide by judges' decisions – as long as they do what the administration wants. Suggested Reading Why do they hate us so much? Jay Elwes In Federalist No 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton, writing as 'Publius', expressed fears that have rarely seemed more pertinent. The judiciary, he said, was by far the weakest of the three supposedly co-equal branches of government (the other two being the executive and the legislature); having 'no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment'. What were once abstract issues for constitutionalists to debate in the lecture hall are now all too practical and menacing. To start with, Mike Johnson, the House speaker, threatened in March to use the congressional 'power of funding' to 'eliminate an entire district court'. Founded in 2019, the Article III Project (A3P) mobilises thousands of phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress to back Trump against the judiciary and is supporting bills introduced by senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and representative Darrell Issa of California to stop federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders. More alarming is the surge in outright intimidation of the judiciary. Since Trump's return, unexplained pizza deliveries have been made to federal judges and their families – a way of telling them that their enemies know where they live. Deplorably, many have been made under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of a federal judge who was murdered in 2020 while protecting his parents from a furious litigant. Judges considered hostile to Trump have also been 'swatted', where a hoax call is made to summon a SWAT team to a particular address – in the hope that heavily armed police officers, following procedure, will inadvertently traumatise whoever is at the location in question. On April 25, Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, was arrested and has now been indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in evading arrest. On Friday, 138 former judges filed a legal argument warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' Pam Bondi, the attorney general, takes a different view. 'The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of,' she said on the day of Dugan's arrest. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today. If you are harbouring a fugitive, we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.' Most shocking of all are the formal discussions among senior judges, revealed by the Wall Street Journal, about forming their own armed security force. At present, the Supreme Court is protected by a special police service which it also oversees; other courts, in contrast, deploy US marshals. Notionally, these officers have a statutory duty to follow the judiciary's instructions. In practice, they work for the Department of Justice, and therefore for Bondi. What, in practice, would happen if the Trump administration flagrantly defied the Supreme Court? Thanks to the court's own landmark ruling last July, the president himself enjoys immunity; he could also pardon officials accused of criminal contempt. Another option is civil contempt, which seeks to enforce future compliance (the person in contempt of this kind is said to 'hold the keys to his own cell'). The advantage here is that the courts can deputise other agencies to enforce their rulings. But which agencies, precisely? Which, in this climate of fear, would be willing to risk retribution from MAGA? Chief Justice Roberts is an 'institutionalist' which means that his highest allegiance is to the preservation of the system that protects the constitution. In the words of his biographer Joan Biskupic, 'he elevated the institutional integrity of the Court above all'. And, to be fair to Roberts, he wrote in his most recent end-of-year report: 'Within the past few years… elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the spectre of open disregard for federal court rulings'. When Trump posted in March that a judge frustrating his deportation plan 'should be IMPEACHED!', the chief justice issued a direct rebuke, declaring that this was 'not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Yet it is precisely this value-system that may deter Roberts from a direct confrontation with the president. For the institutionalist, the prospect of the Supreme Court appearing impotent before an autocratic president is intolerable. Paradoxically, because such a defeat would shatter his worldview, he will postpone the moment of reckoning as long as he possibly can. But he cannot do so indefinitely. High Noon is approaching, and only one of the gunfighters – president or Supreme Court – can prevail. The outcome of that contest depends on a question of global consequence: whether the US remains, as it has long been, a nation of laws; or becomes something altogether more dangerous.