As soon as US-born Robert Prevost was chosen to be the new head of the Catholic Church at a conclave held in May 2025, SPW spoke with Stefano Fabeni, executive director of Synergia – Initiatives for Human Rights, to discuss Vatican politics, including the legacy of Bergoglio’s papacy and preliminary expectations for Prevost.
Fabeni, a long-time partner of SPW and an expert on Vatican dynamics, reinforced Bergoglio’s “revolutionary” character throughout his papacy, highlighting important movements promoted by the Argentine, such as the greater importance gained by the Episcopal Conferences and his relative openness to same-sex unions. He also assessed, in light of the current geopolitical context, the Conclave that elected the first American pope. When the conversation took place, Leo XIV’s papacy had begun less than 48 hours before. So, two months later, we went back to Stefano so he could give us an updated reading of the paths the Catholic Church is currently tracing.
The interview in May was conducted by Nana Soares, and the update and editing were done by Sonia Corrêa. Enjoy the reading!
__
SPW: Two metaphors might be helpful to exemplify Bergoglio’s image as a powerful Pope: the first one is the famous image in the beginning of the pandemic when he was walking alone to deliver a prayer at St Peter Square, and the second one borrows from a Brazilian analysis stating that during his papacy, the Catholic church was like a war-campaign hospital, meaning that everyone was welcome. These might reflect several sides of his papacy. Having these metaphors as the backdrop, how do you assess Bergoglio’s papacy from the political point of view?
Stefano Fabeni: These two images are a good summary of Bergoglio’s papacy. In a way, Bergoglio has surprised many from the very first moment. Should we define him as a “revolutionary”? Perhaps we should revisit the idea of “Bergoglio’s revolution”, considering the strong imprint of Peronism on his politics and mode of being.
In many ways, he embodied the features of Peronism, which was likely influenced by his Jesuit background. So, hybridity was a prominent feature of Bergoglio´s incarnation. This is why the two images highlighted in the question are so powerful: a synthesis of his papacy. The image of Francis alone, praying in St. Peter’s Square at the beginning of the pandemic, is strikingly powerful — a visual narrative that projected strong signals about who he was. A scene that directly evokes Peronism, akin to Eva Peron’s political performances, as it was at once dramatic and lyrical.
On the other hand, it also carried the Jesuit imprint in the sober words he sent to a world in deep crisis. This message evoked the war hospital, as mentioned by the Brazilian journalist. He was there alone, calling everyone to come under the Church’s tent. Recapturing my initial reflection on Bergoglio’s revolution, let’s remember that revolutions must be “short and dirty”. They must resort to symbols and move quickly because there is no time to organize extensively. This is what Francis did.
His impact was somewhat unexpected. As insightfully analyzed by Federico Finchelstein, in From Fascism to Populism in History, Peronism “invented” post-World War II populism. [1] Yet, it was distinctive from the ultra-right populism of our time. In that respect, Bergoglio´s populist traces allowed him to outline the contours of his papacy and its legacy in powerful and sometimes unexpected ways. Primarily, through his words and gestures, rather than through doctrinal changes, as had been done across centuries by previous popes. This meant propelling a revolution without the church.
SPW: Interestingly, you frame Bergoglio’s politics in connection to Peronism in terms of gestures, narrative, his image, as well as the image of the church. This is particularly relevant because his papacy was very brief, lasting only 12 years. There was no time to change doctrines profoundly, but there was time enough to install a distinctive “feeling in the air”, an atmosphere of a very different papacy. Building on that, how would you assess his papacy, in terms of gestures, discourses, and speech acts, as well as doctrines on gender, feminism, abortion, and LGBTQIA+ rights?
Stefano Fabeni: I would begin by saying that he has been a truly evangelical Pope, in the sense of recapturing the origin of the Christian gospel. Evangelical as a reference to the Evangelium, as such. He recovered Christ´s messages, which were also revolutionary: “We must forgive, we must love others, we must be with the sinners”. Not surprisingly, one main criticism waged against him by the ultra-Catholic camp, within and beyond the institutional church boundaries, was that he rewarded the non-faithful, the non-observants, and the “sinners” at the detriment of those who observed the rules. Given that this was Jesus´ approach, in my view, he was truly evangelical.
About the doctrine, by “being truly evangelical” in the sense of reviving the original Christian essence, Bergoglio possibly also addressed the contradiction between its original message and what happened in the 2000 years that followed. Still, he really didn’t touch, – and in my opinion, he willingly chose – not to engage so much with doctrinal matters. He did not change the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for instance. In most of his doctrinal documents, perhaps with the notable exception of the Declaration Fiducia Supplicans, he kept intact the doctrinal tenets that were there before.
On the questions of abortion, gender identity or so-called “gender ideologies”, Sonia Corrêa, in the short essay published by Sexuality Policy Watch, underlined quite precisely how in the text of Dignitas Infinita he basically followed the line established by Ratzinger and John Paul II, except in relation to a more flexible position concerning sexual orientation. In my view, he has also played on that by projecting the idea that he “was not changing anything”. Because, for him, the most important, from a doctrinal point of view, was to recover the original words of Jesus, while the rest could stay as it was. He chose to focus on social justice “revolution” instead of turning the doctrine upside down. Indeed, as you say, he did not have the strength or the time to carry out this upheaval without dividing the church, risking a schism. I would say that, in signing Fiducia Supplicans, he got very close to that.
SPW: Do you see a contradiction between this steady preservation of the doctrine and his speeches and gestures of compassion and generosity? Was it politically calculated?
Stefano Fabeni: I think it was absolutely calculated. Francis left nothing open to be defined by the circumstances. He was very good at that; he was very smart politically. He aimed to disrupt without destroying. Change always requires some process of destruction or dismantling of what existed, but he brought about change without being destructive. And we should take into account where he started. He came after 35 years of the ultra-conservative legacy of John Paul II, of which Benedict XVI has been a continuation. Coming from such a long period of regression, his approach made sense. I guess that if he could, he would have been more disruptive.
His papacy was not very long, as he was relatively old when elected. It is worth making a comparison with John XXIII, who also disrupted the church, but in an entirely different manner. He started with the Vatican II Council, which first and foremost engaged with the doctrine. Francis likely saw himself in that same line but chose his own way. During his very last trip to Asia, somebody asked him if he would reach Vietnam, and his response was: “No, this will be done by John XXIV”. This response is highly indicative of how he perceived his mission.
SPW: Back to LGBTQIA+ rights, women in church, and abortion, do you think there were considerable differences in terms of how Bergoglio dealt with each of them?
Stefano Fabeni: As a general comment, there have been significant differences in terms of approaches to individuals. Again, it is helpful to return to the image of the war hospital, in which there is a place for everyone. Or the idea of the Jubilee of Mercy in 2016. He tried to be very, very inclusive. For example, addressing gender identity was very thorny from a doctrinal point of view, yet he openly supported trans sex workers in Rome during the pandemic, and beyond. This approach was open to the faithful or humanity, regardless of who they were and their background. This was certainly not the approach adopted by John Paul II or Benedict XVI.
But as said, when it comes to the doctrine, not much has changed. As I see it, he was more open on LGBTQIA+ issues, or at least he evolved in that direction, since he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. This does not apply to abortion; he has always been very harsh on that matter. On women’s rights, more broadly speaking, this position was situated in the middle, so to speak. There were significant openings related to the place and role of women in the Church, including the last appointments he made that opened the space for women in some of the Dicasteries. But in that regard, he was more political than revolutionary, more institutional. He was a bit more revolutionary on LGBTQIA+, more institutional on women’s rights and the role of women in the church, and definitely very conservative on abortion.
SPW: When he was elected, I was very young, but I remember his first public appearance as a pope: dressing all white, a simpler cross, choosing Francis as his name. This seems to be related to what you said in terms of being a revolutionary, as his chosen name has never been used before. Was this revolutionary aim there from the very beginning?
Stefano Fabeni: Absolutely, the first few minutes of his papacy were highly disruptive. He came to Saint Peter’s balcony and his first words were “good evening”, like an ordinary person. Then, before giving the Urbi et Orbi blessing, he requested that people pray for him, focusing on his role as a bishop and the Bishop of Rome, which was also highly symbolic. Not a distant pope ruling the world, but a regular bishop of Rome. And, of course, he refused the famous red shoes and to wear white pants under the cassock. Also, on the night of his election, he chose to go back to the Domus Sanctae Marthae monastery, where the cardinals lodge during the Conclave (and where he would eventually permanently reside), showing he meant to be primus inter pares, first among equals. In a way, the choice of his name announced the revolution that came – let’s not forget that St. Francis was so deeply revolutionary for his times that, if it wasn’t because the Church needed him at the beginning of the XIII century to try and counter-arrest the heresies spreading in Europe he would have probably labeled as an heretic himself.
SPW: This was a very short conclave, at least compared to the last one. Do you think that this is a sign that he was successful in terms of ensuring a posthumous dynamics to elect a successor aligned with his views?
Stefano Fabeni: I am not so sure about it. His political vision has, to some extent, materialized in the conclave outcome. But on the other hand, I never believed that the hardcore conservatives had a real chance to elect one of their leaders as an anti-Francis pope at this Conclave. So, in a way, yes, he’s been successful, but again, as a good Peronist, he knew what he was doing. For example, he was very aware that his successor would have to be more institutional. Secondly, the Church leaders gathered around him were very different from him, but shared his agenda, particularly around poverty, justice, and peace. Yet, I am not sure whether this conclave has been clear evidence of the success of the long-term reform of its composition that he has achieved. This change was based upon a political and a geopolitical vision. It meant a sort of “contemporary” globalization of the church based on the appointment of cardinals from all over the world. The journalist and Vatican expert Piero Schiavazzi highlighted how Bergoglio carefully chose the Chairs of the Regional and domestic Bishops’ Conferences and how he tried his best to ensure that the Conclave was a representation of these Conferences. This can be read as an institutional democratization of the Church, aimed at making sure that the Bishop of Rome, while elected by the cardinals, is supported by the regional Bishops’ institutions. This has given considerable power to the Bishops’ Conferences and has been a source of significant tensions and friction amongst them. Considering that, the response to the question about his “posthumous political success” will depend on whether the greater influence of those regional structures will remain intact and be further institutionalized, or not. If it is kept, we can say he was politically successful in shaping future Conclaves. If that changes, it may have been successful for his succession, but it does not necessarily imply a significant change in Church structures.
SPW: Why do you think the ultra-conservative camp did not have a chance in this conclave? Is it because of the number of cardinals appointed by Francis?
Stefano Fabeni: In my view, they lacked the strength to influence this conclave fully. There were two significant groups of ultra-conservative cardinals, from the U.S and Africa. Yet they are conservative in distinct ways. The American group is decidedly very conservative and had been confronting Bergoglio from the start. The Africans, with a few exceptions such as Cardinal Sarah from Guinea, were mostly supportive of Francis concerning poverty, migration, and social justice, yet extremely strict on LGBTQIA+ issues and sexuality. I am not sure whether these two clusters would have been able to completely align around a single candidate. Probably, the most conservative candidate (yet not an “hardcore” conservative) capable of winning this conclave was Cardinal Parolin, the Secretary of State. I never thought that the archbishop of New York, Cardinal Dolan, the archbishop of Budapest, Cardinal Erdo, or even less the former prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Sarah, had any strong chance of being elected.
SPW: Now heading to Prevost, or Leo XIV. How to assess his fast election in light of the current global political context. Did Trump and the present US dynamics influence his election?
Stefano Fabeni – I do not think that Trump had any chance to influence the election, because the Catholic Church always makes decisions with a long-term view: la longue durée. Let’s put it this way: while all hegemonic powers have always used their influence to control the Church, if the Church were involved in the microdynamics of daily politics, it probably would not have lasted for two thousand years. This remains valid even though, after 1870, with the loss of temporal power, the shape and influence of the Church have undergone a profound transformation. On the other hand, this tardive openness that allowed a U.S. bishop to become the new pope must be read against the backdrop of the growing tensions within the U.S. Catholic Church. As it is well known, American Catholics have become increasingly conservative and aligned with the MAGA movement. If in any way the current U.S. political situation had an impact on the last Conclave, I would compare it to what happened when Wojtyła was elected as John Paul II in 1978. In his case, the choice was determined by the view that it was necessary to have an “insider”, which would allow the Church to actualize its approach to Communist regimes. From the point of view of many whom Bergoglio has positioned at the high levels of the Church, the politics of the ultra-right in the U.S. are so disruptive for the world that their containment also requires an “insider”. This political calculus, if it happened, might be read as a symptom of “Trump´s influence”.
SPW: Bergoglio designed a new Vatican geopolitical strategy more centered in the global South, including China. How do you expect Prevost to behave in that regard? Including, perhaps, because of his dual US-Peruvian nationality.
Stefano Fabeni: Looking at the first minutes of his papacy, there were a few tips about where he may go. While this may not be an indication, the way he dressed for the Urbi and Orbi blessing suggested that he will be more institutional and formal. In that respect, the revolution is over, but we have to wait to see how the institutionalization of some parts of Bergoglio’s revolution will or will not evolve. The legacy of Francis can perhaps survive because it was disruptive, but this does not mean that his style and tone will survive. I would imagine that Leo XIV will live in the Apostolic Palace and not in an ordinary Vatican building. His first words were “peace be with you,” signalling an intention to build bridges across the Church´s internal splits.
On the other hand, I believe he is the first Pope who made part of his first speech in a language that is neither Italian nor Latin. Furthermore, it was very telling that despite being American, he spoke in Spanish, not in English. And then there is the choice of his name. Leo refers back to Leo XIII, who began drafting the social doctrine of the Church, adopting the Rerum Novarum Encyclica, which is the main foundation of social doctrines of the Church and finally opened it to the modern world of capitalism and political liberalism.
With that in mind, I suspect that Leo XIV will most likely follow Francis’ approach, on geopolitics – especially around peace, migration, poverty, and social justice. In that respect, his tweet in response to JD Vance on deportation policy is highly expressive of what his position will be on migration: “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others”. In geopolitical terms, Prevost is eventually the very first Pope who is actually a “citizen of the world”: born in the US from a family of European origin, he worked in Peru for many decades before moving to the Roman Curia, or if we want, the Roman court. In my opinion, this combination may propel a reshaping of the U.S Catholic world, if nothing else, because the faithful will have to come to terms with the difference of having a U.S pope or just a U.S.-born pope.
In the case of Latin America, what we will see is a continuation of Bergoglio´s politics. But I am not sure about his potential approach to Asia. Francis has appointed many new Asian cardinals because he saw it as the region where Catholicism could grow the most. Let’s remind ourselves that Asia is the most populous region but has the smallest proportion of Catholics. Bergoglio viewed Africa and Asia as the two continents where the Church could yet expand. But I do not have enough elements to predict what Prevost may do in that respect. On the other hand, having been the Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, he certainly knows the realities of the two regions. We will have to wait and see. Lastly, his insistence on the urgency of peace does not change the strong Vatican´s position vis-à-vis the tragic conflicts underway.
SPW: And, what are prospects on LGBTQIA+ rights, women in the church, abortion, “gender ideology” under Leo XIV?
Stefano Fabeni: I want to start reflecting on the accusation that Prevost has covered sexual abuses while in Peru, which immediately erupted after his election. What I heard from Peruvian sources is that this information was distorted by hard-core Catholic groups, which lost power during Francis’ papacy through measures implemented by Prevost, as was the case with Sodalicio. [2] I tend to believe it, because the cardinals would not have overlooked such a huge scandal. Furthermore, Francis would not have named him the head of the Bishops’ Dicastery in case something as grave loomed over him. Let´s remember that, despite an initial delay, after what happened in his visit to Chile, Francis has taken quick and harsh measures regarding the epidemic of sexual abuse in the Church. [3] At this point, electing someone who covered major sexual abuses would have been a gross mistake that I would not expect from this Conclave.
In terms of his view on our issues, it is still too early and not easy to predict what may come. In any case, Leo will not be like Francis, not necessarily because his approach would be different in the sense of welcoming everybody, but because he will adopt a different style. I don’t see Prevost declaring: “Who am I to judge?”. That said, some of his quotes that have circulated seem to suggest he is indeed more conservative. Reacting to that, some people who are closer to him have pointed out that despite the language, he may still be quite open, even to same-sex couples. Perhaps not as open as to the blessing of same-sex couples, but eventually in continuity with some aspects of Francis’ papacy. In what concerns women´s place and role in the church, I would be very surprised if he took a different position from Bergoglio. The same applies to abortion, which was systematically condemned by Francis and for LGBTQIA+ rights, maybe we will not hear as much as we heard from Francis. For the time being, I would not raise many expectations.
SPW: Stefano, our interview originally took place 24 hours after Prevost had been elected. More than two months have elapsed since then, during which Leo XIV has been very active, either making strong conservative declarations on “gender” and abortion or else adopting significant policy decisions, as those concerning a closer oversight of and institutional changes in Opus Dei structures. On the other hand, numerous signs have arisen of ultra-Catholic sectors welcoming and praising his arrival to power. In this new scenario, what can you say now about how his papacy may evolve in aspects related to matters discussed above?
Stefano Fabeni: My opinion has not shifted significantly so far. Perhaps the most interesting piece of information we have learned regarding the Conclave in the days that followed is that Cardinal Dolan may have played, yet again, a role as “pope-maker,” exactly as it happened with Francis. The need to keep the Conclave short in order to avoid excessively unexpected outcomes led the US bishops to come together with the Latin American bloc around the name of Prevost, exploiting the divisions of the Italian bloc. It looks like Cardinal Parolin’s chances were affected by his role in finding an agreement with the Chinese government on the issue of the Chinese church. Yet, quite interestingly, Leo XIV has so far confirmed Francis’ and Cardinal Parolin’s approach. In general, from a geopolitical point of view, the focus on the Global South will likely continue.
I think his statements on the so-called gender ideology, abortion and family are not surprising, but they are an indication that the revolution is over, and a more “institutional” and unitary phase has begun. As many analysts highlighted in the weeks following the Conclave, Francis’ revolution did not materialize in a reformation, yet caused significant divisions in the Church (for a good reason, I would argue). Based on his profile and his initial actions, we can expect that Leo XIV will focus on reuniting the Church, also in the light of his Augustinian background, and, thanks to his deep knowledge of the Roman Curia, he will focus his attention on the “structure,” trying to address almost three decades of crisis within the Curia and among the Bishops’ conferences. That unavoidably will happen at the expense of more progressive positions around sexuality, family, gender, and abortion.
Yet, although it is still too early to predict the extent to which Prevost will be more conservative than Bergoglio, the open support so far flagged by ultra-conservatives does not offer any meaningful clue about that. I suspect that the ultraconservative camp is doing its best to project the image that it “owns” Leo’s agenda, as a strategy to dismantle Francis’s legacy quickly. In that respect, we should seriously consider Steve Bannon’s initial comment that Prevost was the worst possible scenario. On the other hand, we should also expect the Trump administration to continue claiming some “special connection” with the new pope, including through his brother, who is a MAGA activist and who was already invited to the White House. However, we should neither make a big fuss about it unless it translates into something truly consistent, which would be honestly quite surprising. I wish Leo to be politically savvy enough to read and navigate the US political context from the perspective of the Church as a global entity. That wisdom is the most compelling reason to have the first US-born pope in the current geopolitical context.
[1] See https://chooser.crossref.org/?doi=10.2307%2Fj.ctvpb3vkk
[2] See https://apnews.com/article/vatican-pope-peru-sodalicio-6fcdbb103f78aaeccc58e7b22f81e868
[3] https://sxpolitics.org/es/biblioteca-spw/articulos/la-visita-papal-a-chile-los-limites-del-fenomeno-francisco/6867/
Pope Leo Signals Catholic Church Will Continue One of Francis’ Biggest LGBTQ+ Reforms – Them