How Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost checked all the boxes to become Pope Leo XIV

He who enters the conclave as a pope, leaves as a cardinal.

Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost from the US entered the papal conclave in the Vatican as a cardinal and left as the pope. The Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin entered it as a pope and left as a cardinal but with the prefix, ‘gentleman’.

Parolin was the top contender to become the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church. He presided over the conclave that lasted for less than two days and after the fourth round of voting, read out the results. He was the first to kiss the new pontiff’s ring after the latter answered two questions – first that he was accepting his canonical election as the pope and the second that he would like to be known as Leo XIV.

While Parolin accepted the result as god’s will, many termed his conduct dignified. Except some sections of the media and some cardinals from the ‘Americas’, no one expected an American to become the new pope though some had included Cardinal Joseph William Tobin in the list of probables or papabili. Cardinals cited a ‘convention’ in the Vatican that they never wanted two ‘superpower’ Americans, one the US president and second the pope himself. But, in the end, Prevost got the support of more than 100, much above the needed two-third majority in the electoral college comprising 133 cardinals.

Parolin got fewer than 40 votes in the initial rounds. In the third round, votes ‘converged’ and there was clear edge for Prevost. Italians, with 17 votes, had no option but to elect an ‘outsider’ as the pope for the fourth time in a row. Though Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle from Philippines was projected as having a strong chance to become the 'first pope from Asia', sources said that he was nowhere in the reckoning from the first round itself. Tagle was considered by the ‘liberals’ as the best choice as the successor of Pope Francis for his concern for the poor and the marginalised and for his advocacy for an ‘inclusive’ church.

Did Pope Francis have Prevost in mind as his successor? The speed at which Prevost climbed the ladder of the church hierarchy is reason enough to believe so. He was made a bishop in 2014, promoted as archbishop in 2023 January and was made the head of the dicastery of bishops. His role as the ‘prefect’ of the important department that oversaw the appointment of bishops in many countries, gave him a chance to become a familiar face among the cardinals. It was one of the factors that helped him gain support in the electoral college which had 108 ‘first-time voters’ including Prevost, all appointed cardinals by Pope Francis.

Within eight months of becoming an archbishop, Prevost was made a cardinal. And, in less than two years, he was there at the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica, giving apostolic blessings to his flock of around 1.4 billion Catholics in the world. Born on September 14, 1955 in Chicago, Prevost joined the Order of Saint Augustine in the late 1970s. After being ordained as a priest in 1982, in a couple of years he was sent to the ‘Augustinian mission’ in Peru’s Piura. Before being elected as the head of his monastic order for two consecutive terms, he served as the vicar of a parish in a ‘poor suburb’, defended his doctoral thesis, became of professor of canon law. In short, while entering the Sistine Chapel for the conclave last week, he had checked “all the boxes” for becoming the pastor of pastors. He was for an “inclusive church and catholic traditions”, and had managerial skills.

There would have been a sigh of relief for ‘conservative’ cardinals like Gerard Mueller from Germany when they saw Leo XIV appearing on the balcony of St. Peters wearing the red mozzeta and a stole over a white rochet and cassock. The attire itself signalled a departure from Pope Francis, who had opted for ‘modest’ all-white vestments on his first appearance.

The Pope Francis fan club too was happy with the choice of the name ‘Leo XIV’ as it echoed the voice of ‘the workers’ pope’, Leo XIII. The cardinals, in general, saw in him a mix of Benedict XVI and Francis; in simple terms, a ‘centrist’. That he made his initial remarks mainly in Italian and a few sentences in Spanish considering those in attendance from Peru, was considered by many as a way to keep himself away from the impression that he was an ‘English pope’.

For some cardinals who spoke to THE WEEK, there was more in the selection of the name ‘Leo’. For them, like Leo XIII, the new pontiff can be called an ‘intelligent moderate’. Leo XIII, whose papacy extended from 1878 to 1903, was the ‘first pope of the twentieth century’, and ‘spoke with a voice of calm and reason’. According to papal historians, he ‘was the first to face up to the fact that the world had moved into an industrial age’ and he argued for ‘opening up dialogue between the church and society’. He promoted the study of astronomy and natural sciences at the Vatican and opened up its archives to scholars ‘regardless of creed’.

In his first address to the College of Cardinals, Leo XIV said he wants the Church to “respond to a new industrial revolution and to the development of artificial intelligence”. He stressed on the need for “building bridges through dialogue” for which he made “listening” a pre-condition, as “listening is what allows us to enter into true dialogue”.

“We have to know how to listen – not to judge, not to shut doors as if we hold all the truth and no one else has anything to offer,” he added. In the meeting, he asked the cardinals to air their views freely, but before that, “take at least three minutes to think” what to speak.

According to some cardinals who are waiting in the Vatican for the formal installation of the new pope scheduled for May 18, initial signs from “the first Augustinian pope and the second Roman Pontiff from the Americas” are “impressive”. They see in him a clear inclination to keep the church united, as he did with the two factions - rightists and liberals - of the Peruvian bishops. Though known for taking a middle path, on issues like climate change and migration, he is considered ‘progressive’; when it comes to ordaining women as deacons, he is on the side of the traditionalists.