Referring to the former
Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as “Bob Provost” reflects my Midwestern roots,
which Pope Leo XIV (or “Pope Leo” amongst friends) has as well, even though the
media missed this vital point as to the new pope’s native culture. As if a knee-jerk
reaction, the international media almost immediately sought to circumscribe the
new pope’s “Americanness” by referring to “the Chicago-born Augustinian
missionary” as “history’s first U.S.-born pope” as if he had left the U.S. as a
young boy and had become just as South American as “American.”[1]
Perhaps this is what prompted U.S. President Trump to jump on social media to so
profusely congratulate the first American pope even though as Cardinal, Bob
Prevost had publicly criticized Trump’s immigration policies. The contest was
on to define the new pope! Of course, never to be outdone by anything American,
the very British BBC referred to the “first North American pope,” just as the
BBC had stated many years earlier that Prince Harry and Magen were moving to North
America (rather than to California after a visit in Canada).[2]
The games people play. I contend that the bias behind portraying Bob Prevost erroneously
as only originally from the U.S. represents something more than mere political
and ideological resentment of one of the most powerful countries on Earth.
To be clear, the new pope was from
the United States—in fact, from its heartland—and thus he can indeed be said to
be the first American pope, even though he spent two decades in South America
serving the Church. That he gained citizenship in Peru and the Vatican does not
mean that he revoked or renounced his American citizenship or that he can be
relegated as having been merely born in Illinois. In fact, in 1999, when he was
44 years-old, he returned to Chicago for fourteen years to lead the Augustinian
Order, so even being characterized as “born and raised” in the United States is
misleading.
At 69 years-old when he was elected,
Pope Leo had lived about 40 years in the United States, and all of those years but
four were in Chicagoland, which covers 200 square miles and includes the city
of Chicago as well as the suburbs. He lived there for fourteen years well after
he had graduated from seminary there, so it is incorrect to say that he was
merely born and raised in Chicago. He served the Church in Peru for only 20
years, with only eight of which being when he had dual citizenship.[3]
His church service in Peru occasioned (but did not condition) his citizenship
there, rather than vice versa. Therefore, it is as misleading to characterize
him as “U.S.-born,” as it is to say that he is the first Peruvian pope, or even
that he is the first pope from both Illinois and Peru. The false-equivalence
narrative, especially in Europe, was no accident. There had been an unwritten
rule in the Vatican hierarchy that no American could be elected pope.
Leading involves the use of
symbol, and words are symbols. Upon being announced to the world, it was no
accident that Pope Leo spoke in Spanish (as well as Latin and Italian) and gave
a “shout out” to Peru and did not speak a word of English or refer to people in
his homeland. Speculating, I submit that he may have been sending a message to
the Church hierarchy that he would not be coddling up to the Trump Administration
or, moreover, doing the bidding of the country with perhaps the most
geopolitical power in the world. Both theologically and ethically, religion
should act on a check on the earthly powerful. The days of the Borgia popes
were long gone, and the Roman Catholic Church had shifted to a role of speaking
truth to power. That speaking Spanish and explicitly mentioning Peru can be
construed as misleading, the pope may have judged that this cost was worth establishing
himself as independent of the United States in terms of power.
Secondly, Pope Leo may have
been sending the message that he would not be in the corner of the arch-conservative
American Catholic hierarchy. Even though a few American bishops held a press
conference on the next morning, differences from that ideologically-oriented
moralistic enclave and the moderate pope could be anticipated. Cardinal Prevost
had been instrumental, for example, in Pope Francis’s addition of three women
in the Vatican office that the cardinal ran from 2023 that vets prospective bishops.
That Pope Leo had two women serve as lectionaries reading scripture during his first
mass as pope can be read as yet another use of symbol to send a message. That
is, his choice was “perhaps an indication of Leo’s intention to follow Francis’
priority to expand women’s role in the church.”[4]
If Pope Francis had groomed Prevost, the former may have taught the latter how
to use symbols effectively in leadership. If so, symbolic actions in social
justice, especially for the poor, could be a part of Pope Leo’s pontificate. That
as a Cardinal Prevost had been “critical of the Trump administration’s
crackdown on immigration” could also rankle some American bishops.[5]
Lastly, he reportedly had a role in Pope Francis’s push-back against the
ideologically-conservative orientation of the American clerical hierarchy in
vetting clergy for possible bishoprics in the United States. Therefore, the American
expression, “Be careful what you wish for; you might get it,” could come around
to bite the American Catholic hierarchy in the proverbial “behind.”
There is, however, a “but.” Revisiting
the intentional use of symbol, that Pope Leo wore full papal regalia for his
first address to the world after being elected whereas Francis had not done so
for his first address may signal that Leo was coming into the job with some
conservative leanings that would keep him from being a full-blown progressive
pope, if indeed Francis could be said to have been progressive. Whereas Francis
had famously said, “Who am I to judge?” regarding a gay couple who are monogamous
and love each other and God, and added that it is no crime to be gay, Robert
Prevost had previously said in 2012 that a “homosexual lifestyle” evinces “beliefs
and practices that are at odds with the gospel.”[vi]
As a Cardinal, Prevost abstained from assenting or dissenting from Francis’s
optional blessing on gay civil unions. Bob’s brother back in Illinois told
journalists after the papal election had been announced that his brother is a “middle
of the road” kind of guy.
Even being a moderate could be
enough to annoy the most conservative ideologues in the American church on
occasion, and Pope Leo may have wanted to make clear that he would be
independent of that hierarchy rather than rubber-stamping its obsession on homosexuality
and abortion. He may also have been wanting to tell the European church-hierarchy
by not using his native tongue in his first address that he would not be biased
in favor of the United States. That he could speak Italian and that his father
had significant Italian ancestry were probably more vital than we know in
swinging E.U. cardinals in favor of voting for an American cardinal. Both of
Pope Francis’s parents had emigrated from Italy.
In short, the bias against having an American as pope can be viewed as superficial. Just as Americans exist who oppose the values supporting the excesses of American capitalism and those undergirding the Trump Administration even in matters of foreign policy, so too have there been Catholic priests who were (or are) American and yet have resisted (or resist) the ideological reductionism of the American Council of Catholic Bishops. Superficial, prejudicial assumptions can enjoy sustained unfounded legitimacy and longevity. Such assumptions gloss over significant cultural differences between Americans.
The most important influence on Bob Prevost, culturally speaking, was utterly missed by both American and international journalists because the intra-American culture of which I am referring does not easily fit into the E.U.-U.S. basis of comparison. Like Bob Prevost, I was born and raised in northern Illinois, though his hometown is closer to the city-proper of Chicago than mine is. Whereas he doubtlessly identifies himself as a Chicagoan, I grew up beyond the farthest suburbs. He is a Chicago Sox fan whereas I am a Cubs fan. Yet I submit that we both identify primarily as Midwesterners. The Midwest includes, roughly speaking, fifteen U.S. member-states whose combined population is around 80 million and for which Chicago is the de facto capital, at least as far as commerce is concerned. The Midwest spans from Ohio to Nebraska, and up around Lake Michigan (or, Lake Illinois, which, I say in jest, is far north of the Gulf of America). Illinois is so diverse economically and culturally, such that the southern region, Egypt, has attempted five times to “IL-exit” (which is European-speak for “secede”) from Illinois (really from Chicagoland), that were the pope and I to chat informally, we would quickly and easily nod affirmatively that we are both Midwesterners at heart even though he picked the wrong baseball team (can a layperson absolve a pope?). Such informality may seem strange or even scandalous outside of the Midwest, but I submit that the distinctive culture resonates well with Christ’s emphasis on neighbor-love as benevolentia universalis, including speaking to the poor and other marginalized people in public without talking down to them or as if they were a special case. I submit that a Midwesterner would make an excellent pope, and that the superficial bias has thus impeded the historically European-centered Church.
2. Frances Mao, “Pope Leo XIV Calls Church ‘A Beacon to Illuminate Dark Nights’ in First Mass, BBC.com, May 9, 2025.
3. Stacy Meichtry et al, “First Pope from U.S. Elected,” The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2025.
4. AP News, “Live Updates: Pope Leo XIV Calls His Election Both a Cross and a Blessing, Offers First Homily,” May 9, 2025.
5. Stacy Meichtry et al, “First Pope from U.S. Elected,” The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2025.
6. Li Zhou, “The New Pope Faces Scrutiny on LGBTQ+ Rights,” The Huffington Post, May 8, 2025.
