When Robert Prevost was elected to the “papacy”, he chose the name “Leo XIV”, clearly referencing Leo XIII, who was pope in the 19th century.
Leo XIII was born under the name Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi Pecci in 1810 and reigned as pope from 1878 to 1903.
Based on Prevost’s first encyclical “Magnifica humanitas”, one could get the impression that Leo XIII had only written two documents: Rerum Novarum (1891) and In Plurimis (1888).
Rerum Novarum was an encylical about the rights of workers, which is obviously a topic that the modern world doesn’t have a problem with. However, while discussing the rights of workers, Leo XIII put things into a supernatural perspective. One example:
“The working man, too, has interests in which he should be protected by the State; and first of all, there are the interests of his soul. Life on earth, however good and desirable in itself, is not the final purpose for which man is created; it is only the way and the means to that attainment of truth and that love of goodness in which the full life of the soul consists. It is the soul which is made after the image and likeness of God; it is in the soul that the sovereignty resides in virtue whereof man is commanded to rule the creatures below him and to use all the earth and the ocean for his profit and advantage.” (RN 40)
After all, there is a supernatural goal in life: attaining heaven.
In “In Plurimus”, Leo XIII congratulated Brazil for ending slavery in 1888 and condemned the “shameful trading in men” and told “apostolic men” to “endeavor to find out how they can best secure the safety and liberty of slaves”. (In plurimus 18).
There are some more quotes from and references to Leo XIII in the speeches of Prevost. However, Leo XIII has a lot more to offer than these few nitpicked quotes. The fact of the matter is that the saintly Leo XIII wrote many things which are not taught at all today or the direct opposite of them is taught.
In this article, I am mentioning some of his important writings and show that Prevost doesn’t have Leo XIII as his role model.
Goals of Leo XIII
In his encyclical about the Holy Spirit Divinum Illud Munus, Leo XIII outlines what he calls the two principal aims of his pontificate:
“In pursuance of this object We have endeavoured to direct all that We have attempted and persistently carried out during a long pontificate towards two chief ends: in the first place, towards the restoration, both in rulers and peoples, of the principles of the Christian life in civil and domestic society, since there is no true life for men except from Christ; and, secondly, to promote the reunion of those who have fallen away from the Catholic Church either by heresy or by schism, since it is most undoubtedly the will of Christ that all should be united in one flock under one Shepherd.” (Divinum illud munus 2)
In his encyclical Octobri Mense on the Rosary, he writes: “Universal and well-known are the evils we deplore: war made upon the sacred dogmas which the Church holds and transmits; derision cast upon the integrity of that Christian morality which she has in keeping; enmity declared, with the impudence of audacity and with criminal malice, against the very Christ, as though the Divine work of Redemption itself were to be destroyed from its foundation — that work which, indeed, no adverse power shall ever utterly abolish or destroy.” (Octobri mense 1)
Making war on sacred dogmas and casting derision on Christian morality: that is precisely what has happened very often over the last sixty years and that is what Prevost continues.
Like a good shepherd, Leo XIII was concerned for the salvation of those under his care. In another one of his writings, he said: “We need not tell you, Venerable Brethren, with what bitterness Our soul is filled at seeing the danger there is for the salvation of so many of Our beloved children. And Our sorrow is greater because We find it impossible to oppose such great evil with that salutary efficacy We would desire and that We have the right to use, for you know, Venerable Brethren, and all the world knows, the state to which we are reduced. On this account We feel a still greater desire to call upon the Mother of God and to ask her help.” (Vi e ben noto 3)
Leo XIII on the unity of the Church
Another underrated document is Satis cognitum about Christian unity.
“Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3).” (Satis cognitum 9)
Leo XIII also quotes an ancient Christian writing against the Arians: “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition.” (Satis cognitum 9)
We can contrast this with Prevost, who claimed in a speech in January on the occasion of the “Week of Prayer for Christian Unity”: “We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!”. He didn’t elaborate on what this “unity” between Catholics and other Christians is supposed to mean, but it certainly isn’t the unity of faith, worship and governance, as it was traditionally understood by the Church. I have already written an article on the topic.
Leo XIII on the relationship between Church and State
In 1885, Leo XIII wrote the encyclical “Immortale Dei” about the relationship between Church and State.
“Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion — it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety.” (Immortale Dei 6)
By contrast, Prevost wrote in his first encyclical “Magnifica humanitas”, he wrote many-many pages on “diplomacy”, “dialog” and “multilateralism”, but didn’t mention with one word the duties of the state towards God and the one true religion.
Leo XIII on pagan religions
In the encyclical Ad extremas, Pope Leo wrote about establishing seminaries for local clergy. When talking about India he described Hinduism like this:
“Then, there is Francis Xavier, who long afterwards dedicated himself zealously to the same praiseworthy calling. Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests, secular and religious, who with the authority and permission of the Holy See strove untiringly to preserve and promote the Christian mysteries and institutions introduced by Thomas and renewed by Xavier. To this day, they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition!”
Although Prevost didn’t speak explicitly about Hinduism, as far as I can tell, he is a loyal follower of the Second Vatican Council, which declared in Nostra Aetate: “Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry.” (Nostra aetate 2) So, when the Hindus worship Ganesha, the four-armed elephant-headed god, they are “contemplating the divine mystery”, according to Vatican II.
Pope Leo XIII established the feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius for the entire Church with the document Grande munus and in there, he mentions in passing, that these two saints “recalled the Slavic people from ruin to salvation”. (Grande munus 2)
Paganism is “darkness” and “ruin” for their followers and they need the light of the Gospel.
Anglican orders
One of the most important documents of Leo XIII is Apostolicae Curae from 1896 about the validity of Anglican orders. After the Anglicans broke from the Church, they kept many externals. Their “priest” kept wearing the Roman collar and priestly vestments and they were ordained with a “bishop” wearing episcopal vestments. They were ordained by laying on of hands and a consecration prayer.
Although there was a consensus in the Church that Anglican ordination is invalid, there nevertheless were some people who claimed that it might be valid. Leo XIII instituted a commission to study the matter and then settled the question in Apostolicae Curae.
“Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.” (Apostolicae Curae 36)
The reason was that under King Edward VI, the rite of consecration was changed so much that it became invalid. He explains that there was a “defect of form and intention” (20), because the rite was modified to “Receive the Holy Spirit”, with no declaration of the goal of the consecration, that is, so that the man might become a priest. Although this was later added, the apostolic succession was already broken.
Meanwhile, Prevost continues in the tradition of his post-Vatican II predecessors of most unhappy memory and publicly gives the impression that for example the Anglican “Archbishop of Canterbury” is a valid bishop. He wrote to Sarah Mullally, the first female “Archbishop of Canterbury”:
“In asking the Lord to strengthen you with the gift of wisdom, I pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit in serving your communities, and draw inspiration from the example of Mary, the Mother of God.”
This is blasphemy. He prays to the Holy Spirit to assist in the non-office of a heretic so she can perpetuate heresy, instead of praying to Him that He may enlighten her heart to the truth.
Leo XIII on the Rosary
Leo XIII loved the Rosary so much, that he wrote 11 (!) encyclicals on this topic. I am going to give some quotes here:
“Mindful that in moments of great trial, pastors and people have ever had recourse with entire confidence to the august Mother of God, in whose hands are all graces, certain too, that devotion to Our Lady of the Rosary is most opportune for the needs of these times, We have desired to revive everywhere this devotion, and to spread it far and wide among the faithful of the world.” (Vi e ben noto 1)
He defends giving Mary the title “Mediatrix”:
“And who could think or say that the confidence so strongly felt in the patronage and protection of the Blessed Virgin is excessive? Undoubtedly the name and attributes of the absolute Mediator belong to no other than to Christ, for being one person, and yet both man and God, He restored the human race to the favour of the Heavenly Father: One Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a redemption for all (1 Tim. ii. 5, 6). And yet, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, there is no reason why certain others should not be called in a certain way mediators between God and man, that is to say, in so far as they cooperate by predisposing and ministering in the union of man with God (Summa, p. 111., q. xxvi., articles 1, 2). Such are the angels and saints, the prophets and priests of both Testaments; but especially has the Blessed Virgin a claim to the glory of this title. For no single individual can even be imagined who has ever contributed or ever will contribute so much towards reconciling man with God. She offered to mankind hastening to eternal ruin, a Saviour, at that moment when she received the announcement of the mystery of peace brought to this earth by the Angel, with that admirable act of consent in the name of the whole human race ( Summa. p. III., q. xxx., art. 1). She it is from whom is born Jesus; she is therefore truly His mother, and for this reason a worthy and acceptable “Mediatrix to the Mediator.” (Fidentem piumque animum 3)
Tucho Fernández, the head of the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith”, advised against the title “Mediatrix”.
“Impelled, therefore, by a constant desire that Christians should ever be convinced of the efficacy and dignity of the Rosary of Our Lady, We first of all pointed out that the origin of this form of prayer is divine rather than human, showing it to be an admirable garland woven from the Angelic Salutation, together with the Lord’s Prayer, joined to meditation, and that this form of prayer was most powerful and particularly efficacious for attaining eternal life. For besides the special excellence of the prayers, it affords a powerful protection to faith and conspicuous models of virtue in the mysteries proposed for contemplation. We showed also how easy the devotion is and how suited to the people, offering an absolutely perfect model of domestic life in meditation on the Holy Family at Nazareth, and that therefore Christendom had never failed to experience its salutary effects.” (Diuturni temporis 3)
Prevost does pay lip-service to the rosary. In a speech given in Pompei “My choice of the name Leo places me in the footsteps of Leo XIII, who, among his other merits, also developed an extensive Magisterium on the Holy Rosary.”
Leo XIII the “conspiracy theorist”
Finally, it can be said that Leo XIII was a “conspiracy theorist”. He wrote 4 (!) encyclicals on the topic of Freemasonry: Humanum Genus (1884), Dall’alto dell’apostolico seggio (1890), Custodi di quella fede (1892), Inimica vis (1892). One quote suffices as an example:
“Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God”. (Custodi di quella fede 15)
Prevost by contrast decried “fake news” – he is obviously referencing conspiracy theories – , in some of his speeches, which, according to him, is “shouting” which replaces “dialog”. (link)
Conclusion
“Leo XIV” is not at all following in the footsteps of Pope Leo XIII, as he tries to insinuate.