Pope Leo XIV resumes the tradition of taking a summer vacation. But he's got plenty of homework
In word and deed since, Leo has seemed intent on almost disappearing into the role. The shy 69-year-old Augustinian missionary has eschewed the headline-grabbing protagonism of past pontiffs in favor of a quieter, less showy and more reserved way of being pope.
Leo will disappear further this weekend when he begins a six-week vacation in his first break since his historic election May 8. Leo is resuming the papal tradition of escaping the Roman heat for the relatively cooler climes of Castel Gandolfo, the papal summer retreat on Lake Alban, south of Rome.
People who know and work with Leo expect he will use these weeks away from the public eye and the daily grind of Vatican audiences to get his head around the most pressing problems facing the church. He's a methodical, hard-working and well-prepared manager, they say, who wants to read entire reports, not just the executive summaries, before making decisions.
Here is a look at Leo's summer homework, the outstanding dossiers he may be studying from now until Aug. 17 in between dips in the pool, walks in the gardens and occasional Masses, prayers and visits in town.
After his election, Leo reappointed all Vatican prefects until further notice, so the Holy See machinery is still working with the old guard in place. But a few major appointments await, most importantly to fill Leo's old job as prefect of the office that vets bishop nominations.
Leo also has to decide who will be his No. 2. The Vatican secretary of state, the equivalent of a prime minister, is still Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Pope Francis' pick who was himself an unsuccessful contender in the conclave that elected Leo pope.
Even before he gets his people in place, Leo has to get a handle on one of the most pressing problems facing the Holy See: Its troubled finances. The Vatican is running a structural deficit of around 50 million to 60 million euros ($59-71 million) and has a 1 billion euro ($1.18 billion) shortfall in its pension fund.
There are plenty of high-profile clergy sex cases that festered during Francis' pontificate that are now are on Leo's desk. History's first American pope will be watched closely to see how he handles them, since he cannot claim ignorance about abuse or its dynamics, given the devastation the scandals have wrought in the United States.
On the eve of his vacation, he made an important appointment, naming French Bishop Thibault Verny head of the Vatican's child protection advisory board, replacing the retiring American Cardinal Sean O'Malley.
Leo has already said it's 'urgent' to create a culture of prevention in the church that shows no tolerance for any form of abuse, be it abuse of authority or spiritual or sexual abuse.
On that score, there is no case more pressing than that of the Rev. Marko Rupnik, a famous mosaic artist who was belatedly thrown out of the Jesuits after its superiors determined he sexually, psychologically and spiritually abused two dozen adult women and nuns. Even though the case didn't involve minors, it became a toxic problem for Francis because of suggestions Rupnik received favorable treatment at the Vatican under the Jesuit pope.
Nearly two years after Francis caved into pressure to reopen the Rupnik file, the Vatican has finally found external canon lawyers to hear the case, the head of the Vatican's doctrine office, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, told reporters last week. As recently as March, Fernandez had said he was having trouble finding any willing candidates. Now that Francis is dead, the case may be less politically delicate, even as the priest's supporters maintain his innocence.
Leo has already sent a signal, with Vatican News removing Rupnik's artwork from its website.
Another legal headache facing Leo is what to do about Cardinal Angelo Becciu and the Vatican's 'trial of the century,' which is heading into the appeals phase in September. The city-state's criminal tribunal in 2023 convicted Becciu and eight other people of a variety of financial crimes stemming from the Holy See's bungled 350 million euro ($412 million) investment in a London property.
But the trial was itself problematic, with defense claims that basic defense rights weren't respected since Francis intervened on several occasions in favor of prosecutors. In the months since the verdicts were handed down, there have been new revelations that Vatican gendarmes and prosecutors were apparently in regular touch with a woman who was coaching the star witness into testifying against Becciu. The once-powerful cardinal has denounced the contacts as evidence that his conviction was orchestrated from the start, from the top.
Leo, a canon lawyer, may want to steer clear of the whole thing to try to give the tribunal the impression of being independent. But Leo will ultimately have to decide what to do with Becciu, who recused himself from the conclave but remains a cardinal with a very unclear status.
Leo has said his priority as pope is unity and reconciliation in the church. Many conservatives and traditionalists hope that means he will work to heal the liturgical divisions that spread during Francis' 12-year papacy, especially in the U.S., over the old Latin Mass.
Francis in 2021 restricted access for ordinary Catholics to the ancient liturgy, arguing that its spread was creating divisions in the church. In doing so, Francis reversed his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who in 2007 had relaxed restrictions on its celebration.
Cardinal Raymond Burke, a figurehead of the conservative and traditionalist camp, told a recent conference on the Latin Mass that he had spoken to Leo about the need to 'put an end to the present persecution of the faithful' who want to worship according to the old rite.
'It it is my hope that he will as soon as it is possible take up the study of this question and try to restore the situation as it was' under Benedict's reform, Burke said.
Leo has also identified artificial intelligence as a pressing issue facing humanity, suggesting a document of some sort might be in the works.
Also under study is when he will start traveling, and where.
Leo has a standing invitation to undertake Francis' last, unfulfilled foreign commitment: Marking the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicea, Christianity's first ecumenical council, with a visit to Turkey. Leo has already said a visit is in the works, possibly in late November.
Beyond that, Leo has received plenty of invitations: Vice President JD Vance extended a Trump invitation to visit the U.S., but Leo demurred and offered a noncommittal 'at some point.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy invited him to visit Kyiv, but the Vatican under Francis had refused a papal visit there unless one could also be arranged to Moscow.
Leo's old diocese of Chiclayo, Peru, meanwhile, is waiting for their bishop to come home, and then there's Argentina, which never got a papal visit from the first-ever Argentine pope.
The residents of Castel Gandolfo, meanwhile, are aching for a pope to return. Francis had decided not to use the retreat and instead spent his 12 papal summers at home, in the Vatican. The town has recovered from the economic hit of pope-free summers, after Francis instead opened the papal palace and gardens to the public as a museum year-round.
But townsfolks cannot wait for Leo to take up residence and enjoy the town's gorgeous lake views and quiet starry nights. It's the perfect place for a pope to rest, read, write and think in private, they say.
'Remember, many encyclicals were written here,' noted the Rev. Tadeusz Rozmus, the town's parish priest.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Without compromise, American democracy has no future
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The following day, Bacon announced that he'd also had enough of the intolerant partisanship dominating Congress. The former Air Force brigadier general, Advertisement Tillis and Bacon aren't rebels. They just don't believe their job is to elevate hardline ideological rigidity above all other considerations. In that sense they are like former Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two Democrats who likewise found themselves demonized for occasionally making common cause with members of the opposing party. Last year, they too chose not to run for reelection. Advertisement Of all the developments that have sickened American politics in this generation, the abandonment of democratic civility and the resulting hostility to compromise are the most toxic. The virtues of moderation and magnanimity, the willingness to engage respectfully with others' views, the assumption that individuals with contrary opinions may be wrong but are not evil — without these, our political institutions cannot function. The first and most vital task of liberal democratic politics is to accommodate strong differences without tearing society apart. But that becomes impossible when conciliation is regarded as treachery — and when politics stops focusing on persuasion and debate and becomes obsessed instead with defeating enemies by any means necessary. Granted, Yet compromise has been the lifeblood of the American experiment from its earliest days. The very possibility of self‑government is grounded in the presumption that citizens with intensely held but divergent views can find ways to cooperate. The American founders knew perfectly well that there would always be deep disputes over principles, tactics, means, and ends. That is why they regarded compromise not as a necessary evil but as an essential element of our constitutional system. Advertisement 'Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics,' the American thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote in In ' America's independence holiday is a good time to remember that some of this nation's greatest achievements emerged from political give‑and‑take, not from unilateral assertions of power. The Constitution itself was born of compromise. At the convention in 1787, delegates were deadlocked between a population-based legislature (favored by large states) and one that would treat all states equally (favored by small states). Had the impasse not been broken by what was later called the Great Compromise — a bicameral Congress with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate — the convention would have collapsed and the fragile confederation of states might never have endured. American progress has depended time and again on the ability of political leaders to transcend their partisan, sectional, or ideological loyalties and reach a compromise all sides could live with. Advertisement Consider the bargain struck in 1790 between Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state debts, which would amount to a dramatic expansion of national power. That prospect alarmed Southern leaders like Jefferson and Madison — but they agreed not to derail the plan in exchange for locating the new national capital on the Maryland-Virginia border instead of in one of the major commercial centers of the North. Though each side had to swallow a bitter pill, the deal achieved two vital ends: national creditworthiness through debt assumption, and a seat of government accessible to both North and South. And it showed that even foundational questions about the scope of federal power could be resolved through negotiation rather than force. Congress similarly chose compromise over caustic stalemate in 1964, with a Civil Rights Act that combined Southern concessions on federalism with Northern demands to outlaw segregation. The law was far from perfect, but it transformed American society and politics. It passed despite the opposition of hard-core segregationists, thanks to a bipartisan coalition hammered together by President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader — proof that compromise, when linked to moral conviction, can dismantle entrenched injustice. To mention one more, recall the 1997 budget agreement. When Republicans under Newt Gingrich won control of the US House for the first time in decades, their ' surpluses . It was one more illustration of how ideological opponents, if they are motivated to do so, can find ways to compromise. Advertisement None of this is to suggest that all compromises are good. That would be as ridiculous as insisting that any compromise is bad. The point, rather, is that without the ability to compromise — and without the civility and mutual respect that make that possible — our democratic republic cannot survive. Maybe we've already crossed that point. Is there any reason to be optimistic about a Congress in which fanatics like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bernie Sanders flourish while thoughtful legislators such as Thom Tillis and Kyrsten Sinema are marginalized until they resign? In ' What would have happened if those men hadn't been able to reason together — if they had abandoned all efforts to persuade and had resorted instead to invective and intimidation? The American experiment might have ended before it even got off the ground. If today's leaders continue to scorn compromise and civility, ours may be the generation that brings it crashing back to earth. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Don't look away from what's happening in Iran
As an Iranian-American who has lived and worked as a journalist in Iran — and who spent 100 days imprisoned there — I feel both anguish and dread watching history repeat itself. The leaders of the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic are jockeying over claims of victory, while human rights abuses and the everyday suffering of ordinary Iranians have started to fade, once again, from the headlines. Advertisement During the 12 days of war, more than 700 people were accused of being 'Israeli operatives' and were arrested, according to the state-affiliated Fars News Agency. Human rights groups Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Meanwhile, Iran's parliament has Advertisement It's no surprise that a regime blindsided by a foreign enemy's highly coordinated attacks would now move swiftly to root out what it sees as security threats. But the regime is not just fighting foreign adversaries. It is using the war as a pretext to crack down on domestic dissent. Having experienced firsthand the lack of due process and transparency within the Islamic Republic's judicial system, I have no doubt that many innocent people will be punished for crimes they did not commit. In 2009, after six years of living and working in Iran as a journalist, I was arrested and accused of spying for the United States. My interrogators claimed that the CIA had paid me to use a book I was writing about Iran as a cover for espionage. 'It's not possible you could be conducting so many interviews,' one insisted, 'only for a book.' Like many Iranian political prisoners, I was held in solitary confinement and subjected to grueling interrogations, unable to inform anyone of my whereabouts. The authorities threatened my loved ones, fabricated evidence, and warned that espionage could result in many years in prison, and even the death penalty. For decades the regime has accused journalists, civil society leaders, women's rights activists, lawyers, academics, environmentalists, and humanitarian workers of committing crimes against the state — sometimes under a charge of espionage. During my time in Tehran's notorious Advertisement My own sentence was eight years, but I was lucky. After an Countless others — especially those without the support of a foreign government or the attention of the international media — have not been so fortunate. The regime expends enormous resources interrogating citizens, monitoring internet activity and phone calls, pressuring people to inform on one another, and tailing them in the streets, in cars, even on flights abroad. 'If the system worked well, they would have found the real spies and prevented Israel from doing so much damage,' an Iranian friend told me. 'But instead, the regime took people like you and claimed you were spies.' Today, many of those being swept up in the regime's dragnet appear to be suffering the same fate. Detainees are being fast-tracked through unfair trials in kangaroo courts without legal representation or due process, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran. The Iranian regime is responding with repression because 'it knows it won't collapse due to foreign intervention alone,' says Rebin Rahmani, a board member of the Paris-based Advertisement This crackdown, in other words, was predictable. Afsoon Najafi, whose youngest sister, Hadis, was shot and killed by security forces during nationwide protests in 2022, told me, 'A large percentage of Iranians will again be killed by the Islamic Republic because the regime's agents are full of resentment toward Iranians. And the regime's own agents also know that we know they're scared.' Regardless of whether US and Iranian officials resume negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, the Trump administration has an opportunity to show that human rights matter, too. That means, among other things, supporting Iranians' access to information — for example, by restoring full funding to Voice of America Persian, a crucial source of uncensored news for millions in Iran. American citizens can also play a role. By calling their members of Congress and expressing support for measures like the Steps like those from the American people, even if their message isn't taken up by Congress and the current administration, would still send a clear signal to Iran: Human rights abuses will not be ignored. When I asked an artist in Tehran what she hoped the world would understand about the Iranian people now that a fragile cease-fire is in place, she said on condition of anonymity, 'I don't know what the people of the world can do, but I want them not to be indifferent to the pain we're enduring.' 'At the very least,' she added, 'let us remain in the news. Let them keep an eye on us.' Advertisement If the world fails to keep an eye on the Iranian people, we risk silently sanctioning yet another chapter of repression in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
