Habemus Papam. And maybe, there couldn’t be a better time for it. Nor a better Pope.
Robert Francis (a sign? a predestination?) Prevost gathers all the characteristics necessary to be a good Pope. And, even further, the right Pope.
Let’s see why.
We can start, but only start, with the most macroscopic feature: he was born in the USA. He is American.
No, not the first American Pope, Bergoglio was American too, but as a matter on fact, there isn’t in English a specific adjective to more precisely indicate someone coming from the United States.
For months, years we have been observing and discussing the orientation of Pope Francis towards the “global south”, towards Africa and, even more, towards Asia. There is the place where demography is exploding. There is the place where Catholics still represent a minority of the population, and need therefore to be won over. There is the place from where many of the new cardinals have been chosen in recent years. There is the place where Bergoglio was directing his sight—there is, probably, the future nerve centre of the planet. There is the place where we would have expected the origin of the new Pope would be, if the change in the Church, if the path set by Pope Francis would have been continued, if the ecumenic vocation of the Catholic Empire would have been pursued.
And yet, we have now an American Pope, and this is good.
Even more, under the surface, it might be exactly the continuation of that very path.
In this geopolitical setting, having a (north) American Pope as Prevost is much more meaningful than a far easter one…that would be now still premature, but next time could be the right moment.
Prevost has both the geopolitical as well as the personal requirements to bring the best possible contribution to today’s World, within and outside the Church.
The Significance of a Pope from the United States
First, his US nationality on one side situates him best possibly to be the antithesis, the hedge of Trump and of his world perspective.
To say that Prevost’s U.S. nationality is incidental would be reductive. Historically, the Papacy has always been a reflection—not only of spiritual needs but also of geopolitical positioning. In an increasingly multipolar world, where Western influence is being challenged, having a Pope from the United States brings with it a unique cultural and strategic ballast.
The West still counts. Not as a protagonist anymore, but as a meaningful actor, still.
America is, we don’t know for how long but still is, the world’s most influential cultural and military superpower. And it is a nation at once profoundly religious (although in a wicked way, sometimes) but socially and politically fragmented. In this tense climate, Prevost’s U.S. origin becomes more than a biographical footnote—it is a theological and political tool.
He stands as an insider-outsider. Someone whose passport grants him credibility in the U.S. society and among the believers, yet whose distinctive personality and role allows him to be different.
This very profile positions him to be, in many ways, the nemesis of Trumpism—not only spiritually, but geopolitically, both within and outside America.
Geopolitics and Soft Power
Second, Inside the US, where populist nationalism misuses religion for power, Prevost’s voice could serve as a counterbalance rooted in authentic Christian ethics, simply existing as an alternative, a symbol of Catholicism’s true vocation: universalism, mercy, humility.
Outside, Prevost’s Latin American experience—most notably his long tenure in Peru—gives him an invaluable credibility in “global south” and postcolonial contexts.
The conservative bishops in the U.S. will have to listen—he is one of them, technically. The faithful in Africa and Asia will respect him—he has lived their realities.
And while an Asian pope would undoubtedly have represented an important evangelic signal, the Church, in this moment, may need someone who is not just belonging to the margins, but who, while understanding them, can speak to the powerful of the world with leverage.
And this is the third Edge of Leo XIV: On one side, his Papal authority will be able to create an alternative to the current government instrumental use of religion inside the US, being more credible than his predecessor on the Peter’s throne exactly because being himself US born. On the other, this same authority and power of the nationality can be used on geopolitical theatres, bringing the weight of his being a US child to the table, with the legitimation that this entails. For himself, but for the other (super)powers of the world too.
This could be enough to still the thirst of American and universal acknowledgment that certain geopolitical actors search on the global stage. And consequently, sooth their ego enough to soften their positions without fearing to be perceived as weak. Offer a US validation, at least a perceived one, without being an official one. and give a new turn to the world dynamics. He could be a strong alter-ego of Trump on international negotiations, where his soft power would be felt and could be used as significant, without being official.
Continuity and Contrast: Bergoglio and Prevost
Prevost is a synthesis: doctrinally firm, humanly compassionate. A man capable of sitting with missionaries in Lima and with canon lawyers in the Vatican. A man who believes in doctrinal values—but who also understands that mercy, not rigidity, is the essence of Christ’s teaching.
His ability to bridge camps might allow him to do what Francis could not: to institutionalize reforms. To change not just the tone, but the structure. Synodality. Decentralization. Clerical accountability.
In many ways, this new Pope would be the spiritual son of Francis—but also his strategic correction.
And where Francis was occasionally naive in his Vatican governance—facing pushback and even subversion, which prevents any real change to happen—Prevost may prove the change maker.
Without consensus no reforms, without consensus no revolution.
Yet, without Bergoglio disruptive tenure, without a Pope showing that being the Head of the Catholic Church and at the same time assess it critically it was possible, without legitimation of the fact that going against crystallized traditions was conceivable, even within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, without Francis pioneering footprint, Leo XIV would not have been what he could now be. He would have not dared to be.
Bergoglio was a revolutionary. Prevost could be a renovator.
Revolutions, as history shows, often falter in implementation. For real renovations, you need both clear vision and endurance, selflessness and authority, discipline and unwavering determination. A Pope who does not proclaim change but enacts it quietly and effectively.
A lion in lamb’s clothing.
The Church has entered a new phase. It is no longer a European only institution.
It is, for the first time in centuries, truly global—and at the same time truly fragmented.
Leo XIV could be the Pope of pluralism. A Pope that understands the need of diversity and yet sees where are the similarities, the essence of incarnated Catholicism. A Pope who is able to keep together a Faith that looks and feels different in Kinshasa and Memphis, in Caracas and Manila, in Rome and Tehran, but that, in his deepest meaning, is One.
