Vatican City – The interview granted by Pope Leo XIV to journalist Elise Ann Allen, on the occasion of the publication of the biography León XIV: ciudadano del mundo, misionero del siglo XXI, offers a privileged insight into the thinking and priorities of a pontificate that has only just begun. With calm and clarity, the Pope addresses the issues that divide the Church and the world: from social and cultural polarization to the impact of new technologies, from the role of women in the ecclesial community to the complex LGBTQ+ question, up to the most heated debates on the liturgy and the future of episcopal conferences. His words do not offer immediate solutions but open perspectives. They call for the need to safeguard essential values – life, family, the dignity of the person – without yielding to ideologization or simplifications. Leo XIV shows himself faithful to tradition, yet at the same time attentive to a listening that excludes no one, seeking to bring ecclesial dialogue back to the heart of the Gospel.
Question: This was my next question: polarization, because today it is a buzzword, both inside and outside the Church. How do you think it can be resolved?
Pope Leo XIV: One thing is to raise the issue, and another is to really talk about it. It is very important to begin a deeper reflection, trying to understand why the world is so polarized. What is happening? There are many reasons. The crisis of 2020 and the pandemic had an effect on all this, but I believe it started much earlier. Perhaps, in some contexts, even the loss of a higher sense of human life played a role. The value of life, the value of the family, the value of society. If we lose the meaning of these values, then what remains that truly matters? To this we must add other factors. One very significant one is the ever-widening gap between the incomes of the working class and those of the wealthiest. For example, CEOs who sixty years ago might have earned four or six times the salary of a worker, today, according to the latest figures I saw, earn six hundred times more than the average worker. Yesterday I read the news that Elon Musk will become the world’s first trillionaire. What does this mean? What are we talking about? If today only this has value, then we are facing a great problem. We must face these questions: the crisis that awaits us with technology, artificial intelligence, the world of work, the possibility of having enough jobs for everyone… If we automate everything and only a few have the means not only to survive, but to live well, to lead a meaningful life, then we have an enormous problem before us. This was one of the questions I had in mind when I chose the name Leo, thinking of what is happening today and the challenges that await us. I would like to return later to the theme of artificial intelligence and the crisis you have described, but regarding the polarization and division you mentioned, it is no secret that they had a significant impact on Francis’ pontificate, on the criticisms he received and on how he was perceived. Is this something that worries you now that you take on the same role? Returning to what I consider my task, I do not feel the need to complicate it: my role is to proclaim the Good News, to preach the Gospel. I believe that the Gospel already addresses some of these issues, starting from the fact that we are sons and daughters of God, the Creator, who sent His Son, incarnate among us, to teach us the value of human life, without ever losing sight of the perspective of eternal life. If you lose this horizon, you lose your compass: you risk wandering in vain, not knowing where to go. For this reason, I do not consider my main task to be the solver of the world’s problems. That is not my role, even if I believe the Church has a voice, a message that must continue to be announced, proclaimed, and proclaimed loudly. The values the Church brings in facing great global crises do not come from nothing: they come from the Gospel, from a clear point that shows us how we understand the relationship between God and us, and among ourselves. We must return to the most basic things: respecting one another, respecting human dignity. Where does this dignity come from? And how can we use this respect as a starting point to say that the world can be a better place, where we can treat one another better? There have been periods when this voice was lost, ignored, or undervalued. Yet it is very interesting what is happening today in countries like France, which for a long time was considered among the most secularized nations. Yesterday I met a group of young French people: last year thousands of them, now young adults, freely asked for baptism. They want to enter the Church because they realized their lives are empty, that something is missing, that they lack meaning, and they are rediscovering what the Church has to offer. In this sense, I believe my mission is clear: to ask where we begin, where we want to go, and above all, how this message can have meaning even when looking at geopolitics and the situations we are talking about.
Question: Two of the most controversial issues that emerged from the Synod on Synodality, in terms of the debate they generated, were the role of women in the Church and the Church’s approach toward the LGBTQ+ community. What were your reflections on the discussion of these two issues, and how do you intend to address them now in your new role as pope?
Pope Leo XIV: In a synodal way. For most people it is clear that the role of women in the Church must continue to develop. I think in that sense there was a positive response. I hope to continue in the footsteps of Francis, including the appointment of women to some leadership roles at different levels in the life of the Church, recognizing their gifts and the contribution they can offer in many ways. The issue becomes controversial when the specific question of ordination is raised. The Synod spoke specifically about the possible ordination of women deacons, a question that has been studied for many years. Different popes have appointed various commissions to ask: what can we do about it? I believe it will continue to be an open question. For now, I have no intention of changing the Church’s teaching on this point. I think there are some preliminary questions that must be addressed. Let me give just a small example. Earlier this year, during the Jubilee of Permanent Deacons – all men, of course – their wives were also present. I held a catechesis with a fairly large group of English-speaking permanent deacons. English is one of the best represented groups, because there are parts of the world that have never really promoted the permanent diaconate, and this in itself raises a question: why should we talk about ordaining women to the diaconate if this very ministry is not yet properly understood, developed, and promoted within the Church? And what are the reasons for that? For this reason, even though I think that at the time of the Council there was a significant inspiration when the permanent diaconate was restored, in many parts of the world it did not become what some people thought it could be. Therefore, I believe there are some questions that need to be addressed around this topic. I also ask myself, as I pointed out in one of the Synod press conferences, regarding what has often been identified as clericalism in the current structures of the Church: do we simply want to invite women to become clericalized, and what would that really solve? Perhaps there are many things to examine and develop at this moment before we can really get to the other questions. This is how I see the situation for now. Certainly, I am open to continuing to listen to people. There are study groups, such as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which continue to examine the theological background and history of some of these issues, and we will walk together on this path to see what results emerge.
Question: Just a quick follow-up on the LGBTQ+ issue. It can be a very ideological subject. However, beyond any ideological vision, I think people felt that under Francis it was spoken about differently, with a different tone. What will your approach be?
Pope Leo XIV: I do not have a concrete plan at this moment. I have already been asked a couple of times in these first two months about the LGBTQ issue. I remember what a cardinal from the eastern part of the world told me before I became pope: “The West is obsessed with sexuality.” For some people, identity coincides only with sexual identity, while for many others, in other parts of the world, it is not at all a central issue in how we must relate to one another. I confess that this observation stays with me, because, as we saw in the Synod, any topic related to LGBTQ issues generates very strong polarization in the Church. For now, what I have tried to show and live concerns above all my understanding of sacramental marriage, at this moment in history, in my being pope. But I know very well that even just saying this may be received badly by some. In Northern Europe, for example, rituals are already being published to bless “people who love each other,” as it is expressed. But this clearly goes against the document approved by Pope Francis, Fiducia Supplicans, which states: of course all people can be blessed, but one must not seek to ritualize a certain type of blessing, because this does not correspond to the Church’s teaching. This does not mean that those people are bad, but I believe it is essential to understand how to welcome those who are different from us, to respect people who make different life choices. I am aware that this remains a controversial issue, and that some will make specific demands: the recognition of same-sex marriage, for example, or of transgender people, so that all this may be officially approved and recognized by the Church. Individuals, however, will always be welcomed. Any priest has heard confessions of every kind of person, with different problems, life situations, and choices. The teaching of the Church will continue to remain as it is, and on this I have nothing further to add, except that I consider it very important. Families must be supported, particularly what is called the traditional family: father, mother, and children. The role of the family in society, which has been severely hit in recent decades, must be recognized and strengthened. I wonder if polarization and the way people treat each other do not also depend on the fact that many have not grown up in a family where they learned to love, to live together, to endure one another, and to build bonds of communion. That is family. If we remove this fundamental block, it becomes very difficult to learn such dynamics in any other way. There are some key aspects that must be considered. I am who I am because I had a wonderful relationship with my father and my mother. They lived a happy marriage for over forty years. Even today people notice it, also with my siblings. We remain very united, even though we have very different political positions. In my experience, this has been an essential component of what I am and of how I can be what I am today.
Question: Another quick follow-up on the Synod. In addition to the study groups already established, you created two new ones: one on the liturgy and one on the Episcopal Conferences and ecclesial assemblies. Why? What should they reflect on?
Pope Leo XIV: In reality, they had already been approved by Francis, right at the end of his pontificate. Both arose as a development of other themes addressed by the Synod. The Episcopal Conferences, for example, originated in Latin America before the Council, and developed much more during the Council, regarding their role in supporting the life of the Church in each country or region. In general, there was great appreciation for the role of the Episcopal Conferences. Today we are no longer in the situation where a bishop on one side of the river preaches one thing, and the bishop on the other side preaches something completely different. They meet, try to face issues together, develop common policies or shared approaches, depending on the cultural, linguistic, and pastoral context. On this level, the value has been evident. The question that has remained open for years is how much real authority can be attributed to an Episcopal Conference. The theological debate has been ongoing since Vatican II, because the successor of the apostles is the individual bishop, not the Episcopal Conference. This has generated tensions: to what extent can a Conference make decisions that bind all bishops? The Synod expressed the desire to deepen this point, to verify whether Episcopal Conferences can have a more relevant role in fostering unity and making decisions useful for the life of the Church in different regions. In parallel, the role of the apostolic nuncios is also being studied. It is reasonable for a regional Church to reflect and choose approaches more suited to its own context, rather than each bishop proceeding alone. It is a way to support bishops in their ministry. Some also raised the issue of the “doctrinal” authority of the Conferences. This term, translated in different ways during the Synod, created confusion. Some English-speaking bishops were alarmed, thinking that, for example, the bishops of Northern Europe could modify doctrine on marriage and divorce, homosexual relations, or polygamy. African bishops too raised issues that were difficult to reconcile with formal doctrine. The different translations of the term made the debate even more complex.
Question: And regarding the study group on the liturgy? What is it reflecting on? Is it linked to the divisions over the traditional Latin Mass or the new Amazonian rite?
Pope Leo XIV: The main motivation concerns the inculturation of the liturgy, that is, how to make the celebration more meaningful within a given culture and in a specific context. That was the central point.
However, there is also another theme, already very controversial, that I have received in several letters: the return of the Latin Mass. But the Latin Mass can already be celebrated, if it is the Vatican II rite, there is no problem. Different is the question between the Tridentine Mass and the one reformed by Paul VI. It is not clear how this will evolve, and it is very complex. Part of the problem is that the liturgy has been used as a political tool, becoming a pretext to carry forward other battles. At times even the celebration of the Vatican II Mass has been carried out in such a way that it did not foster a true experience of prayer and encounter with the mystery of faith, leading some to seek it in the Tridentine Mass. We have also become polarized on this: but truly, if we celebrated the Vatican II liturgy well, would there be all this difference?
I have not yet had the opportunity to sit down with a group of people who support the Tridentine Mass. It will happen soon, and there will be opportunities to talk about it. But it is a subject that requires dialogue. The problem is that now polarization is such that often people are not even willing to listen to each other. I have heard bishops tell me: “We invite them to meetings, but they do not even want to listen.” This closure is a problem. It means we are in the field of ideology, no longer in the communion of the Church. And this is one of the issues we must face.
d.G.A.
Silere non possum