Opinion: Pope Leo XIV and the Question of Moderation

By John F. Di Leo, Opinion Contributor

Whether one is Roman Catholic or not, after all, it matters to us all whether the spiritual leader of a billion people is good or bad at his job – so we all wish Pope Leo XIV great success as a good leader of the Catholic Church.

Having seen very contradictory reports about his past life as Cardinal Robert Prevost, I think there’s an interesting point worth making, one that draws a relevant line between conservatives and liberals in general: some people tend to think a man is “moderate” if his political statements are in line with theirs, without considering how they compare with other groups’ positions.

Cardinal Bergoglio, his predecessor in Rome for the past dozen years, caused a lot of trouble by being intentionally divisive and frequently venturing into politics unnecessarily, often taking both the conservative and liberal side of the same issue, his lack of clarity and offhand remarks ever deepening the divisions between camps.

Some on the liberal side of the Roman Catholic Church have praised Prevost for not seeking controversy, for not being divisive, in their view. He’s a nice, cordial, quiet, conciliatory, pastoral man.

This, they believe, makes him a moderate.

It doesn’t.

In many cases, as a prelate with a twitter feed, Cardinal Prevost took very extreme opinions. He blasted Vice President Vance for enforcing the border, he championed George Floyd, he called for a green agenda of CO2 reduction, etc.

To the left, these aren’t controversial at all.

The left believes that all the world’s 8 billion people have a right to move to the USA if they want to, because they think borders shouldn’t exist (they’re out of their minds).

The left believes that George Floyd was killed by a vicious, racist cop (he was actually killed by his own drug overdose, as the autopsy confirmed).

The left believes that a surplus of carbon dioxide is quickly destroying the planet (a ridiculous degree of gullibility in utterly fictional “science” – essentially a scam to impose socialism through guilt and fear).

Now, you and I know these three beliefs are simply wrong. But in the current context, it’s relevant to ask the question of why Cardinal Prevost believed them, and promoted them on Twitter (now known as X).

Is it that he’s so deeply invested in theology – reading the Bible, studying the theologians, writing his own sermons and training materials – that he simply doesn’t have time to spend studying other things, so he trusts the political pronouncements of his friends?

Is it that he’s so gullible that he’s easily conned by liberal politicians like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg that he just accepts whatever they say without question?

Is it that he’s a leftist at heart?

Is it that he has been trained to believe the mainstream media without question?

Is it that he shares other people’s tweets without thinking, just because he thinks they’re well crafted (echoes of the play, “You Can’t Take It With You,” in which very nonpolitical people print up marxist posters just because they like the sound of the sentences).

Is it that he’s an idiot?

Understanding his twitter feed is the challenge.

As an administrator and pastor, he has a somewhat middle-of-the-road record. He is unfortunately not an orthodox Catholic, but he did not appear to fully embrace the unorthodox drift of the Bergoglio years, either.

It’s his politics that are confusing, especially since he took Republican ballots at least a couple times in Illinois primaries back when he lived in Chicagoland. (Illinois doesn’t have firm party declarations, but the ballot one takes in primaries is considered the main indicator of party preference. To have voted in two or more Republican primaries is considered an indicator that a person is either conservative or moderate, but certainly not leftist). And to be even a soft Republican in Illinois indicates some experience with being part of a persecuted minority that could be good practice for a pope.

But to say that his twitter feed is not the twitter feed of a Republican is putting it mildly.

It does, however, explain why commentators call him a moderate. While conservatives know that his positions on the above issues are radical, many of those who take these positions do not realize how radical they are.

It is conventional wisdom that CO2 is killing the planet, that George Floyd was an innocent man murdered by a racist policeman, that the USA has a moral obligation to accept any of the 8 billion who desire to move here.

They are not only completely wrong on all three points; they are told to believe that their beliefs are mainstream.

Speaking for myself, I cannot believe that a man with multiple degrees, one of which was in mathematics, is a moron. So, stupidity is not an excuse for his political errors.

What’s left? Is he a leftist? Is he gullible? Does he trust anything he sees in print? Does he live in such a closed environment that leftist thought is all he ever encounters?

We may find out, as the days go by, or we may never know, if he (hopefully) stays out of such issues in the future.

As a pope, he will either stay in his lane and concentrate on matters of theology and church management, or he will occasionally meddle in politics. There is certainly enough worthwhile work in the management of the Roman Catholic Church to keep him busy without needing to stray outside his lane.

After the past twelve disastrous years, the world’s Roman Catholics desperately need a pope who concentrates on reaffirming the things that make this church Catholic.

The world needs a good pope, not another half-baked dime-a-dozen politician.

Copyright 2025 John F. Di Leo