The L14 Puzzle--A Roundup

Who is this L14 guy? Those who are hopeful are able to come with convincing seeming signs, and those who are pessimistic are also able to cite persuasive reasons. Last night I wrote:

An interesting question is, How did this election of Prevost go down? For Prevost—a relative unknown who kept most of his views close to the vest—to have been elected on the 4th ballot is actually rather remarkable. No doubt hope for a future American cash infusion played a part. But Prevost first had to block and overcome strong campaigns by several Italians—not an easy task in and of itself. Then, he had to garner 2/3 support from around the world in a relatively short period of time. No way could he have done that on his own, in my view. To me that suggests he had influential backers who worked the College of Cardinals assiduously for months if not longer. Perhaps later we’ll find out more about who the people behind him were.

I’ll stand by that assessment. Some organized group—perhaps only organized for the purpose of thwarting a Bergoglio 2.0—had to have advanced Prevost. To have performed that blocking maneuver and then get Prevost accepted by the 4th ballot seems to unlikely without a lot of preparatory spadework—too much for Prevost alone.

Let’s get the troubling stuff out of the way first. Commenter Tamsin provided three links for those with the energy to do a bit of reading, and I’ve added a related one:

The Spanish website InfoVaticana exposes a push by certain Church figures to have Cardinal Robert Prevost elected pope. A translation of the article below.

Catholic Vote noticed, https://catholicvote.org/legacy-catholic-media-promote-cardinal-same-time-coincidence-or-campaign/

Lifesitenews was Apprehensive, https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/could-cardinal-prevost-be-the-first-american-pope/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/5-worrying-things-you-need-to-know-about-leo-xvi/

Beyond the serious cautions offered in these articles, another theme is that Prevost was being widely backed, across a wide spectrum of viewpoints, as a sort of compromise candidate—or worse, in some estimations. The last article contains the most troubling point, which I alluded to initially when I said something like, ‘if you like the bishops Bergoglio appointed you’ll like this guy’—because Prevost was the point man for appointing bishops. Even though Bergoglio had the final say, he must have trusted Prevost to have put him in that position:

As head of the Congregation for Bishops, Prevost was instrumental in the removal of Bishop Strickland from Tyler, Texas, and the leading French conservative bishop, Dominique Rey, from his diocese of Fréjus-Toulon.

Meanwhile, he has placed openly heterodox bishops in sees worldwide. The most notorious is Cardinal McElroy, who was installed as Archbishop of Washington despite being implicated in the cover up of sexual abuse by ex-Cardinal McCarrick

You can get more on this aspect here, and if you follow the link there’s also a link to the full hour long interview of Strickland with Glenn Beck:

Matt Gaspers @MattGaspers

Below is @BishStrickland’s real-time reaction to the newly elected Pope Leo XIV (former Cardinal Robert Prevost) on @glennbeck’s show today. “As head of the Congregation for Bishops, frankly, in my opinion, he [Cardinal Prevost] made some really bad choices there,” His Excellency told Beck. “He was involved in naming bishops that I find very troubling, so we’ll have to keep praying.” Bishop Strickland also finds the new pope’s name “very interesting,” specifically in reference to Leo XIII’s famous vision and the St. Michael Prayer he composed as a result. Source:

Video

10:21 PM · May 8, 2025

At best, you could say that Prevost was willing to serve as the tool of Bergoglio to do some really raw things that harmed the Church greatly. Was he doing this to fly under the radar, somehow? It’s very difficult to reconcile that with ‘Let your yes be yes and let your no be no.’ This is a guy who was not inclined to stick his head up out of his foxhole, rather than go to the mat on a principle—and he participated in the persecution of those who did have principles.

OK, moving on.

Mother Jones @MotherJones

Is the new Pope MAGA or woke? Depends who you ask.

The truth is that only time will tell where Leo falls on the ideological spectrum.

The Spectator World @TheSpectator

"It would have been fascinating to hear American-inflected English from that balcony. But we didn’t. This is significant."

Ah! Did some cardinals get rich off this?

The Spectator World @TheSpectator

"Was the first American Pope ushered in on a wave of suspect, last-minute betting? Something odd seems to have been happening on at least one online gambling platform – Polymarket – in the minutes before the new Pope was announced."

New York Post @nypost

Betting markets wildly wrong on Pope Leo XIV, with only a few prophets making cash profits https://trib.al/tFSl4lY

Damian Thompson cites conservatives who provided this ringing endorsement:

Damian Thompson @holysmoke

I just spoke to influential traditionalists in Rome and they think Leo will be a vast improvement on Francis or (shudder) Parolin. The name, the traditional robes, an excellent homily today – the new pope may not be conservative but he isn’t a ‘continuity candidate’. There will never be a Francis II. As for the TLM, one source said: ‘Leo doesn’t enjoy hurting people – unlike Francis or Roche.’

Did he enjoy hurting Strickland and the people of DC and Fréjus-Toulon? By this account he didn’t—but he winced and did it anyway.

Ed Feser, well known unwoke Catholic philosopher weighs in:

Edward Feser @FeserEdward

Those concerned that Francis and Leo XIV might have similar theological views should keep in mind that as important as theology is, temperament is crucial too. Francis had a tendency to be rash, stubborn, impatient with precise formulations and careful reasoning, insufficiently respectful of precedent, unwilling to take advice, vindictive and resentful of criticism. A more reasonable man, even one with similar theological predilections, might have been talked out of Francis’s more problematic decisions.

Really couldn't care less about Pope Leo's politics as long as he's faithful on doctrine. Too many people on all sides of current political disputes can't understand the difference.

I'm talking about everyday partisan political disputes about which faithful Catholics can disagree, not matters of fundamental principle

Lastly, rumors of the people behind Prevost. It suggests Prevost was regarded by some as a viable compromise candidate. After all, anyone who was willing to work for a guy like Bergoglio—

rash, stubborn, impatient with precise formulations and careful reasoning, insufficiently respectful of precedent, unwilling to take advice, vindictive and resentful of criticism, enjoyed hurting people

—had to have been willing to engage in compromise. Of course, the question arises, if Prevost made commitments of some sort—carefully and discretely framed, of course, because anything else would be improper—can he be held to those commitments?

So, for what it’s worth, the very liberal National Catholic Reporter shares reports from major Italian media. And to be fair, when it comes to pope watching, the Italian media are second to none, steeped in sniffing out the conspiracies that are the lifeblood of Italian politics:

Conclave roundup: Conservative cardinals attack Pope Francis' legacy in US and Italian media

The main theme of the article is that prominent, elderly cardinals savaged Bergoglio in meetings before the conclave began. By implication they were also savaging the most prominent Bergoglio cronies who were considered candidates. That means, above all, Parolin. That’s the blocking move I spoke of. But then Prevost had to be advanced as a worthy substitute, despite all the reports of scandal that strongly suggested that, while he parroted the official “zero tolerance” (of sexual abuse) line, he was after all an organization man. Those cardinals had to have had some inkling that they would be able to round up sufficient votes to deliver for Prevost the American:

On another front, the idea of an American pope is gaining traction with Cardinal Robert Prevost emerging as a serious frontrunner, NCR's Christopher White and Rhina Guidos reported. Born in Chicago but shaped by decades of service in Latin America and Europe, the 69-year-old Augustinian friar now heads the Vatican office that oversees bishop appointments worldwide.

If you follow the link contained in that quote you’ll find a liberal American boost for Prevost as a toned down Bergoglio 2.0. But in the main article linked above we learn this:

The Corriere della Sera also reported Prevost has been seen on April 30 entering conservative U.S. Cardinal Burke's apartment in Rome to take part in "a top-secret summit."

Burke (and German cardinal Gerhard Mueller who has been delivering “fiery” denunciations of Bergoglio and all his works) would certainly have been at the forefront of efforts to block Parolin and any other Italians. But they would also have needed a candidate of their own to back—or, perhaps, to slyly suggest as a compromise they’d accept. Who else was at that not so “top-secret summit”? Well, that’s the secret part. So far.